PITAMBAR PARIDA Vs. ABDUL REHMAN & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the tenant-petitioner challenges the order dated 1.9.1982 passed by the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri in H.R.C. Appeal No. 25 of 1981 directing eviction of the petitioner from the case rooms consisting of a room of the size 10'X30'.

(2.) The short facts leading to the present writ application are summarised as follows :

(3.) In the said application for eviction in paragraph 5 the landlord-the present opposite party made a prayer that he wanted to start his business for his son Harun in this room and he required the house in good faith for the use and occupation of his son. He had examined himself and his son Harun as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and another witness by name Biku Lala as P.W. 3, who is businessman dealing with electrical and stationary goods who promised to supply electrical goods to Harun on terms of credit if he had a showroom of his own. In the evidence P.W. 1 had stated that he bona fidely required the room in question for his son Harun, who desired to have his business started therein. He also stated that he has funds made available for his son Harun for running the business, Harun also deposed in the Court that he wanted the case premises for running his business and that the banker like United Commercial Bank and Dena Bank are now hesitating to finance him as the room in question has not yet been vacated by the tenant and made available to him. He also exhibited one of the letters of the Bank (Ext. 3) in proof of such contention. He also filed a latter from the Bhubaneswar Supply Agencies, who also refused to allow loan to him as the case premises where he wanted to have business was not vacated. The letter was exhibited as Ext. 4. The House Rent Controller, however, dismissed the H.R.C. case on the ground that the landlord has failed to establish his case that he required the house in good faith for use and occupation of his son or himself. Besides, House Rent Control proceeding was also not maintainable since there was no existing relationship of landlord and tenant between the present petitioner and opposite party no. 1 as after the issue of notice for vacating the premises by the landlord, the tenant was only a tenant on sufferance and the landlord was not entitled to get him vacated under the House Rent Control Act as he ceased to be a tenant within the meaning of the Act.