MOOL CHAND Vs. RAM GIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the appellate authority, Karnal dated 8.4.1983 under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "the Act)" accepting the appeal of the respondents-landlords against the judgment of the Rent Controller, Karnal dated 30.11.1981. The respondents are the owners of a vacant piece of land situated in Sadar Bazar, Karnal which was occupied by the appellant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2.81 inclusive of house tax. The appellant was running the business of a tea-shop constructed over the said plot. The respondents filed a suit for eviction of the appellant on the following grounds :-

(2.) THE appellants in reply to eviction petition admitted the tenancy but denied all the allegations mentioned above. After hearing the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :

(3.) BEFORE the lower appellate Court it was contended that the Rent Controller was not justified in accepting the testimony of tenant against that of the landlord as the testimony of the landlord had to be given more weight, he being the sole judge of his requirement. It was contended that the inference drawn by the trial Court that the landlord had not placed any material to show that he possessed the necessary funds and the capacity to start the business was totally mis-conceived. It was further contended that the tenant had never challenged the claim of the landlord on these issues as no such suggestions were put to him during cross-examination. The tenant, however, contended that the landlord could not be given benefit of his silence in this behalf because it was for him to establish his case beyond doubt. The lower appellate Court after hearing the arguments from both sides came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord for his personal use was genuine. It was observed that there was no dispute about the proposition that mere desire to live in one's own house was not decisive and the landlord must prove his bonafide need. The lower appellate Court also found that although in para 3(iv) of the petition the landlord had clearly stated that the premises were required for his own use and occupation for starting his own business of wood "taal" and coal depot, yet it is significant to note that this contention was never challenged. In reply to this para the tenant had only stated that the property in dispute could not be got vacated on the grounds mentioned in para 3(iv) as the same was commercial one being used and let out for commercial purposes. Thus, according to the lower appellate Court, the need of the landlord was admitted. The appellate Court also found that in the cross- examination of the landlord no suggestion was given to him that he did not want to start his business or that he did not have the necessary capacity and experience to start the same or that he was getting the eviction order in order to seek an increase in rent. It was observed that the whole cross- examination was directed to the aspect that he had other buildings and he was getting them vacated for the same purpose. Thus in the absence of any such challenge there was nothing on record to show that the landlord had no capacity or inclination to start the business. It was further observed that the business of coal depot and wood "taal" on a vacant land does not require any special skill or any heavy investment. No prior steps are required to be taken to open such a business except obtaining a licence. The view of the Rent Controller that the landlord had not obtained the licence which showed that he had no intention to start his business was not tenable because the licence could only be applied for after the landlord had obtained possession of land. The lower appellate Court, therefore, set aside the findings of the Rent Controller or issue No. 3 and ordered the eviction of the appellant- tenant from the premises in dispute.