PETER JAMES Vs. DEWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal by a tenant against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, affirming that of the Controller, allowing the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of the bona fide personal need of the landlord for a residence, must fail on the short ground that there is no justification to vary the concurrent findings of fact on the various questions in controversy between the parties.

(2.) Eviction of the tenant was sought on the twin ground of non-payment of rent and bona fide personal need of the landlord for a residence. The first ground does not survive. Tenant resisted eviction on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant in thatthe premises had been taken by thetenant on rent from one Som Raj Sahni, an admitted co-owner of the property, and that, in anyevent, the landlord did not bona fide require the premises for a residence. The Controller dispelled both the contentions and held that on the sale of half share of the property by Som Raj Sahni, who until then exclusively owned it, to the respondent by A.W. 5/1 and on the settlement between them by A. 6/1, the respondent became the exclusive landlord, to whom the tenant has been atorning since then. It was further held that the landlord had since decided to shift to Delhi for health reasons and was living in a tenanted premises paying Rs. 105 as rent and his need for residence was therefore, bona fide and the tenanted premises could not be considered as suitable. The Tribunal has upheld the findings on both the 193 courts, the finding on the first count having been since reinforced by Ex. C. 1, a judgment of a Civil Court, between the parties, in a suit filed by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of rent. The tenant had not filed any appeal against the judgment of the Civil Court and the same has, therefore, become final.

(3.) Shri Luthra, who appeared for the tenan sought to challenge the order of eviction on the ground that, on the material on record, Shri Som Raj Sahni and after his death, his widow and respondent were Co-landlords of the tenant and the petition for eviction could not be filed without impleading the widow of Som Raj Sahni and that, in any event, on the material available, the findings of the Court below, that the landlord bona fide required the premises for a residence, was perverse.