J SREERAM PRASAD Vs. KONCHADA JAYADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application a tenant has questioned legality of the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class-cum-House Rent Controller, Berhampur (in short, the 'Controller') and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam, Berhampur (in short, the 'CJM') in a proceeding under Ss. 5 and 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (in short, the 'Act').

(2.) Opposite party No. 1 Smt. Konchada Jayadevi (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlady') initiated the proceeding inter alia on the ground that the tenant (petitioner herein) was in occupation of the case house on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- which was fixed several years back; the case house is situated in a busy locality and business center; the fair rent of the case house considering the locality, size of the case house and the amenities available would be at least Rs. 1,500/- per month; therefore it would be meet and proper to fix the fair rent at Rs. 1,500/ - per month; she belongs to trading community and her two major sons were not properly employed; she intended to start a cloth business there along with her sons; the tenant was irregular in the matter of payment of rent; after July, 1981 he did not pay rent continuously for three months in spite of several demands and was a willful habitual defaulter. In essence the prayers of the landlady were for fixation of fair rent, eviction of the tenant on the grounds of bona fide requirement, and willful default to pay the rent agreed upon. The tenant filed his objections stating that the house was taken on lease from one K. Rajeswar Rao Subudhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-; security deposit of Rs. 4,000/- was accepted on an oral understanding that the same will be refunded at the time of vacating the house; the tenanted premises did not have any amenities and in fact was a single room and part of a very old house requiring major repairs and heavy investments; he had invested Rs. 25,000/- for making repairs; there was no default in payment of the house rent; but it is the landlady who sometimes granted consolidated receipts in acknowledgment of the rents received; there was no bona fide requirement by the sons of the landlady, who have got their residence-cum-shop house in Big Bazar, Main Road of Berhampur and the landlady did not require the house at all; and since he did not accede to the request of the landlady to enhance the rent the application for eviction has been filed mala fide.

(3.) The Controller formulated three points for determination and held that the landlady had succeeded in proving willful default and bona fide requirement. The fair rent was fixed at Rs. 350/-. Accordingly the tenant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the house within three months from the date of the order. The tenant assailed the order before the learned C.J.M., who affirmed the conclusions of the Controller. The tenant therefore has filed this writ application.