LAWS(ORI)-1989-5-3

SURENDRANATH PATRA Vs. PARBATI KUMARI DEVI

Decided On May 11, 1989
SURENDRANATH PATRA Appellant
V/S
PARBATI KUMARI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having been directed to be evicted from a shop house by the appellate authority under the House Rent Control Act, the tenant has filed the writ application praying to quash the order of the said authority.

(2.) Admittedly, late Raja Sahib, Dharakot was the owner of several shop rooms including the one in which the petitioner was a tenant. These shop rooms are situated in the town of Berhampur in the district of Ganjam. The petitioner is alleged to have been inducted as tenant some time in the year 1972. The late Raja Sahib, who had inducted the petitioner as a tenant died in the month of May, 1974 leaving behind several heirs. Opposite party 1 is his wife and opposite parties 2 to 4 are his daughters. On 10-6-1976 the present opposite parties 1 to 3 filed an application u/S.7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') praying for eviction of the petitioner mainly on two grounds namely; (i) wilful default in payment of rent and (ii) bona fide requirement of the landlords. The present petitioner though admitted that there was default in payment of rent, offered an explanation for the purpose of showing that the default was not wilful. He also contended that the plea of bona fide requirement on the part of the landlords is colourable and in fact they had no necessity to use the premises in question for their own purpose. The House Rent Controller on a consideration of evidence adduced by both parties held that the default in payment of rent was not wilful and also held that the landlords have failed to prove that they required the premises for their own use and occupation. Consequently, the application of the landlords was dismissed on merits.

(3.) The landlords thereafter carried up the matter in appeal (H.R.C. Appeal No. 13/83) which was decided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ganjam as the appellate authority under the House Rent Control Act. The said appellate authority reversed both the findings and allowed the application u/s.7 of the Act.