RAMGOPAL HADAJARIMAL PARIKH Vs. RIKHABCHAND SUMERMAL SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The appellant is a tenant. The High Court by the impugned judgment confirmed the order of eviction on the grounds mentioned in sub-sections (2)(vi) and, (3)(iv) of S. 1 5 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. Counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court was not justified in ordering eviction under clause (vi) of sub-section (C) because at no time had the tenant either denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy. Counsel refers to the pleadings contained in the written statement as well as to the evidence and submits that the High Court was totally unjustified in ordering eviction under that clause.

(2.) We have gone through the written statement as well as the deposition. We are not satisfied that the High Court was right in ordering eviction in terms of clause (vi) of. sub-section (2) of Section 15. That clause reads as under:-

(3.) However, the High Court Was justified in ordering eviction in terms of clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of Section 15. The tenant is bound to vacate the premises for the purpose of reconstruction, but subject to the protection of re-induction provided for in the third proviso to that clause. The said third proviso reads as under:-