NAZAR K A Vs. PALMFIBRE INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision. Order of eviction was concurrently passed under Section 11(3) of the Act. Though claim for eviction was made under Section 11(2) (b), that was disallowed by the Rent Controller. It was not appealed against. The petition schedule building was originally held by a firm by name Green Garden Company. It was contended by the landlord that the respondent company took over the assets of the partnership firm and since then it became the landlord of the entire property including the petition schedule building. The need projected is that the company wanted to construct a nine storied building and that unless the petition schedule building is demolished the proposed building cannot be constructed making use of the remaining area.

(2.) The claim was resisted by the revision petitioner contending that the respondent is not the landlord of the petition schedule building and that the revision petitioner is not a tenant under the respondent. It was also contended that for the construction of the nine storied building as alleged by the respondent, the petition schedule building is not liable to be demolished. The Rent Controller found that the denial of title put forward by the revision petitioner is not bonafide. It was found that the need put forward by the respondent to construct a nine storied building as stated in the petition is true and that without demolishing the petition schedule building the said construction cannot be made. Though the revision petitioner contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso, he could not succeed in his plea. Hence order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3).

(3.) The learned Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the evidence concurred with the order passed by the Rent Control Court.