RAMESH CHAND GOYAL Vs. MURARI LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") applied for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") from the premises under reference (hereinafter referred to as "the premises") on plea of nonpayment of rent and personal necessity which was averred to be bonafide in character.

(2.) In a finding of concurrence, the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority recorded that the respondent had been able to prove that he required the premise for his personal use and occupation. The controversy about nonpayment of rent was rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the tender of due amount was made before the learned Rent Controller. Even before the learned Appellate Authority, there was no controversy about that part of the finding. It is in the pleadings and also the own statement of the respondent that he is presently residing in a rented accommodation which is situated in a congested and polluted locality and that he being a man aged about 70 years experiences great pain in his knee joints while climbing the stairs to reach tenanted first floor premises. The testimony on oath of the respondent was supported at the trial by that of his son Suresh Kumar. The medical documentation in the context is available on record in the statement of PW-3 Dr. P.K. Sodhi, a duly duly qualified Physician practicing at Delhi, who conceded having issued the relevant certificate Ex. P6.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the finding on point of personal necessity deserves to be invalidated for two reasons. The respondent had himself conceded that he is living at Delhi in house owned by him. Inspite thereof, he had refrained from making a mention of that fact in the pleadings and had instead opted to make a false averment that he is putting up in a rented accommodation. Further, he had conceded that he owns a house at Beri. In support of the averment in the preceding sentence, attention of this Court was invited towards the statement of respondent in the course of cross-examination. It is also pointed out that factum of the respondent owning the house at Beri is also conceded by his son Suresh Kumar who entered the witness box as PW-2.