RAM NATH Vs. RAJENDER PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a retired army personnel and aged about seventy-three years. His case is that his wife is suffering from heart ailment and arthritis; his son, daughter in-law and three grandchildren are residing with him; and has three married daughters. He filed a petition seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises in question on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use as an additional accommodation. The total built-up area of the house of the appellant is 695 square feet, including the premises in question. The premises in question is said to be a storeroom. The storeroom is now in the occupation of the respondent as a shop in which he is carrying on business. The trial court, on consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that the requirement of the premises in question of the appellant was bona fide. The contention of the respondent was that no eviction could be sought from the premises in question for residential purpose since the shop has been constructed for commercial purpose. The first appellate court, in the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of eviction, found that the requirement of the appellant of the premises in question was not bona fide; it took the view that the premises in question, being a shop used for commercial purpose, no eviction decree could be passed against the respondent; it also found that the appellant did not bona fide require the premises in question as the available area in his possession was sufficient and particularly when one shop which was in the occupation of the other tenant has also been vacated during the pendency of the proceedings. In this view, the first appellate court upset the decree of eviction passed by the trial court. The appellant took up the matter in revision before the High Court questioning the validity and correctness of the order passed by the first appellate court. The High Court, unfortunately, without considering the rival contentions in the light of the material placed on record, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the requirement of the drawing room (baithak) was not bona fide requirement. In that view, the High Court affirmed the order passed by the first appellate court. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first appellate court as well as the High Court committed serious error in reversing the decree passed by the trial court ordering eviction of the respondent. According to the learned counsel, the trial court was right and justified in recording findings in the light of the evidence on record; having regard to the size of the family and also looking to the total built-up area itself being small, the eviction order passed by the trial court could not be reversed.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions in support and in justification of the impugned order of the High Court affirming the order of the first appellate court.