CHANDER SAIN BERRY Vs. AVINASH MITHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Avinash Mithal, respondent/landlord had sought ejectment order against his tenant Dr.Chander Sain Berry, petitioner herein. Dr.Avinash Mithal decided to come back to India from London alongwith his wife and settle permanently in his own house. The petitioner herein sought leave to contest the petition, mainly on the ground that the landlord/owner had no intention to settle in India as he was happily settled in London. He wants to sell the house or give the same to a contractor for reconstruction purposes. He does not want to live here. The fact that he has no intention to live in India can be inferred from the fact that his daughters are not interested to come with him to India. They have permanently been settled in United Kingdom. One daughter is married in England. She is a Doctor. Other two daughters after completing their education have taken up work at England. Hence it is only a wish of the petitioner to come to India in order to get the house vacated. He has put up a makebelief desire made with an ulterior motive to get the house vacated and thereafter sell it. By the impugned order, the Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) did not find any substance in these contentions of the tenant, hence dismissed his application for leave to contest. The learned ARC granted the decree of ejectment. Aggreived by the order whereby his leave to contest application was dismissed the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) The main thrust of petitioner's argument has been that the respondent wants to sell the demised premises to some developer/builder in order to make profit. He has no intention to settle down in India. Nothing has been brought on record to show that landlord's desire is genuine or that he wants to settle in India. The respondent/landlord admitted that his daughters are permanently settled in United Kingdom. They are not interested to come to India. Landlord has only three daughters. If they remain in England there would be none to look after them in this old age. Moreover, landlord has a placious house of his own in London. This he is still keeping. These factors would show that he has no intention to settle down in India nor his need is bonafide.

(3.) At the outset, it must be mentioned that so far as ownership of the premises in question is concerned there is no dispute about the same. There is also no dispute with regard to the purpose of letting. Premises was let out for residential purpose only. Relationship of landlord and tenant exists. The only dispute is with regard to bonafide requirement of the respondent. Mr.Ishwar Sahai, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent never required this premises for his occupation. The reason for the same, Mr.Sahai contended rest on the fact that the respondent did not do anything from which it could be inferred that he has a genuine desire to come to India. Mere fact that respondent produced a certificate indicating that he and his wife are suffering from arthrities is not sufficient. Nor it proves that he wants to settle down in India. If his desire had been bonafide and genuine he would have come to India during winters and stayed here to show his genuinness. If he had been really interested to come to India he would have sold his house at London. That would prima facie lend support to his version. But that is precisely not done by the respondent herein. He has not been frequently visiting India nor staying as and when visited India. These facts show that he never had any desire to settle in India. No where in his petition even he pleaded of having come to India and staying here for a longer period either to avoid cold wheather or to make arrangement for the ejectment of the petitioner rather the letter written to petitioner speaks otherwise.