MOHD ASLAM MIRZA Vs. MADANLAL ROOPCHAND CHALLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment, passed by the learned District Judge, Aurangabad, in Rent Appeal No. 49/1988, arising out of order, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad, in case No 87/arc/102, dated 18-7-1988, directing the present petitioner to hand over the possession of the suit tenement to the respondent/landlord, petitioner/tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Application, inter alia contending that the judgment of the first Appellate Court is totally erroneous inasmuch as the findings of that Court are based on the evidence, which is not on record and that the findings are totally contrary to the evidence on record. It is also urged that remand order passed by 1he District Judge in the said Rent Appeal on 24-11-1988, was beyond the jurisdiction of that Court and that in that remand order, the learned judge had set aside the judgment and order of the Rent Controller and had sent back the case for recording the evidence of the Rent Controller on certain points. In view of this illegal remand order also the present order passed by the learned District Judge is not sustainable. It is, therefore, urged that entire approach of the District Judge, has not only been illegal on the point of procedure. but also on the point of appreciation of evidence and the same deserves to be corrected by allowing this revision and dismissing the Rent Application filed by the respondent/ andlord. This has indeed been stoutly opposed on behalf of the landlord, on the ground that both the Rent Controller and the first Appellate Court rave taken the correct approach to the matters under dispute and that ;he first Appellate Court has rightly held that the respondent/landlord ias been able to prove his bonafied in the demand for additional accommodation and that the petitioner/tenant had acquired alternate accommodation.

(2.) IN order to resolve this controversy, it would be appropriate to traverse through the pleadings on behalf of the respondent/landlord and the pleadings which are in the nature of countering the claims of the respondent/landlord put up by the petitioner/tenant

(3.) THE plaintiff claims to be the owner of house bearing Municipal house No. 5-18-37-A comprising C. T. S No 17698, known as 'varsha', situated opposite Roxi Cinema In the year 1975, two rooms on the ground floor were let out to the defendent for the purposes of running his office of labour consultancy. The tenancy was for 11 months initially and the rent was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month. Plaintiff No 2 passed his LL. B. examination in the year 1985 and was enrolled as an advocate in the month of January, 1986. Plaintiff No. 1 has been running his office in the two rooms on the ground floor adjacent to the rooms given to the defendant. The plaintiff contended that these two rooms were not enough for accommodating his son, who wanted to start his practice as advocate. Defendant has been occupying his own premises in Block No. 12, Model Co-operative Housing Society, situated at Himayatbagh, aurangabad. The plaintiff contended that the defendant has been running his office partially in those premises and that those premises are suitable for him by way of alternate accommodation. It may be mentioned that the contentions regarding payment of rent and the dispute in that regard need not be reproduced here because those questions are not in dispute at this stage Suffice it to say at this stage that the plaintiff wants additional two rooms in possession of the defendant for the purposes of the office for his son who wanted to practice as an advocate with effect from January, 1986 Accordingly, the notices was given to the defendant and defendant as tenant, has as usual denied the demand and hence this rent Application before the Rent Controller at Aurangabad.