T BHAGIRAO Vs. K PANDURANGA SUBUDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed by the tenant is to Annexures 1 and 2. Annexure 1 is the order passed by the House Rent Controller in proceedings under the Orissa House Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)granting a decree against the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the suit house to O. P. No. 1 within two months. Annexure 2 is the order in appeal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8-9-75 confirming the order of eviction.

(2.) THE order of eviction was granted against the petitioner by the House Rent controller on the ground that the house in question was required in good faith by O. P. No. 1 for purposes of his profession and also that the same was bona fide required by him for remodelling to make it suitable for the aforesaid purpose. The learned appellate Court negatived the first ground, but agreed with the learned House Rent Controller that the house was required for remodelling and on this basis maintained the eviction order.

(3.) IT was strongly urged on behalf of the petitioner that mere remodelling of the house without the proof of any "requirement" by the landlord did not justify the grant of a decree of eviction under Section 7 (4) of the Act. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on (1975) 41 Cut LT 460: (AIR 1975 Orissa 130 (FB)) (H. . Mohammad Sikandar v. Badrunissa Bibi ).