MOHAMMAD ZAHID Vs. BINOY KRUSHNA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the appellate order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore H.R.C. Appeal No. 7 of 1985 (Annexure 3) wherein he confirmed the order passed by the House Rent Controller Balasore in H.R.C. Case No. 14 of 1983 (Annexure 1) directing eviction of the petitioner from the shop room in his possession.

(2.) The proceeding was initiated on the application filed by landlord opposite party No. 1 seeking eviction of his tenant, the petitioner from the shop room. The eviction was sought on the grounds of personal requirement of the landlord and wilful default on the part of the tenant in payment of rent. The opposite party No. 1 also prayed for fixation of fair rent and for enhancement of rent from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/- per month. The case of the opposite party No. 1, shortly stated, was that he was threatened with eviction from the rented house in which he was running his printing press under the name and style of 'Orient Press' and therefore, it is necessary for him to get vacant possession of the shop room in occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner refuted the claim of opposite party No. 1 and contested the case. The opposite party No. 1 examined himself as the sole witness in support of his case. No evidence was adduced by the petitioner.

(3.) The Controller on consideration declined to accept the plea of wilful default in payment of rent by the petitioner. He however accepted the plea of bona fide requirement of the opposite party No. 1 and directed eviction of the petitioner on that ground. The petitioner assailed the order in appeal. No appeal or cross objection was filed by opposite party No. 1 challenging the order rejecting the plea of wilful default in payment of rent. The appellate authority, as the discussions in the judgement reveal, permitted the petitioner to further cross-examine the opposite party No. 1 and to adduce evidence from his side. In the evidence the petitioner brought on record certain subsequent events in the case, i.e. during pendency of the proceeding the opposite party No. 1 had got vacant possession of two other shop rooms in the locality in the eviction proceedings initiated by him against other tenants which were disposed of on compromise between the parties and that he had shifted his printing press to the said rooms. The appellate authority on consideration of the evidence not only upheld the finding of the Controller that the opposite party No. 1 had bona fide requirement of the shop room in occupation of the petitioner but also accepted the plea of wilful default in payment of rent. He ordered enhancement of rent from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- per month. Regarding the subsequent events introduced in the evidence adduced by the petitioner, the appellate authority was of the view that he was to dispose of the proceeding considering the factual position as it stood on the date of initiation of the proceeding and could not take into account subsequent events in the case. He dismissed the appeal. The judgement of the appellate authority is under challenge in this writ application.