MOHANLAL MODI Vs. JADUNATH MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are tenants in respect of a shop house situated within the Municipal area of Balasore town who have been directed to vacate the house by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, as the appellate authority under the House Rent Control Act.

(2.) The Opposite Parties filed H.R.C. Case No. 2 of 1977 in the Court of the House Rent Controller, Balasore, against the present petitioners praying for their eviction. It was alleged in the petition under S.7 of the Act that the disputed house belonged to the father of the present O.P. No. 1 and he inherited the same from his father as his sole heir. It was further alleged that the present O.P. No. 1 inducted the present petitioner No. 1 as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 30/- since Jan. 1967. The present Opposite Parties also alleged that the house rent for the period from Oct. 1973 till Jan. 1974 has been outstanding as arrears and, therefore, the tenants are wilful defaulters in the matter of payment of monthly rent. Eviction was sought also on the ground of bona fide requirement by the landlord himself alleging that his second son requires the disputed house for running a Manufacturing Unit therein. The petitioners in their written statement denied their relationship with the present Opposite Parties and alleged that it was one Sitanath Mohapatra who had let out the house to the present petitioner No. 1. It was further stated in the written statement that the present Opposite Party No. 1 is a co-sharer of the said Sitanath Mohapatra and by an amicable arrangement the disputed house was allotted to Sitanath Mohapatra who had inducted the tenants therein. In substance it was alleged that there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the proceeding under the House Rent Control Act was not maintainable. According to the present petitioners they have been paying rent to Sitanath Mohapatra and after him to his son Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra and they are not defaulters far less wilful defaulters in the matter of payment of rent. The allegation that the house is necessary for personal requirement of the petitioners before the House Rent Controller was denied as a false pretence.

(3.) The learned House Rent Controller after receiving all the evidence that was tendered before him held that Sitanath Mohapatra was the person who had inducted the present petitioners as tenants in respect of the disputed house and therefore he is the real landlord thereof. The learned House Rent Controller also found that the present petitioners had been paying rent to Sitanath Mohapatra and after his death, to his son Prasanna Kumar Mohapatra. His further finding was that the petitioners were not defaulters in paying rent of the house and the claim of the house on the ground of personal necessity was not bona fide. He, therefore, dismissed the application for eviction.