MAHENDRALAL MOHANLAL SHARMA Vs. AJIT SINGH HARINAMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad directing his eviction and also challenging the order of confirmation of the aforesaid order by the District Judge, Aurangabad and it arises out of the following facts. The present respondent No. 1 Ajit Singh field eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad against the present petitioner who is admittedly the tenant of house No. 823 situated in the Cantonment area at Aurangabad. In his petition Ajit Singh averred that he is the landlord. He alleged further that the petitioner-tenant was not paying rent each month regularly and was in arrears for rent of a period from 1.2.1974 to 30.9.1975 and as such was a wilful defaulter. He also alleged that the tenant did not pay monthly and regularly and inspite of a notice also he did not pay rent. He alleged further that he needs the suit premises for his personal bonafide use. He, therefore, sent an ejectment notice to the tenant and filed this petition.

(2.) THE tenant resisted this petition. He denied that Ajit Singh is the owner of the suit house. He contended that the suit house is in the name of Sardar Singh brother of Ajit Singh in the assessment register of the Cantonment Office. He, therefore, contended that Ajit Singh has no cause of action to file this petition. He denied that he was a wilful defaulter. He contended that rent that was due was only Rs. 900 and he has deposited this amount in the Court on 24.9.1975. He denied also that Ajit Singh wanted the suit premises for his personal bonafide occupation. He contended also that after the notice terminating the tenancy, plaintiff accepted rent from July 1975 onwards and, therefore, the notice became ineffective.

(3.) THE tenant carried an appeal to the District Court at Aurangabad and it was heard by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge held that Ajit Singh was competent to file this eviction petition. He held that the tenant was a wilful defaulter. He also rejected the contention of the tenant that the could not be evicted because he belonged to essential services. It appears that the question of bonafide requirement was not pressed before the learned District Judge. Consequently, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal but granted one month's time to vacate the house. This has given rise to this petition.