RAMAN MALHOTRA Vs. JAGDISH RAJ MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2989 of 1987 and 210 of 1988. Both these petitions are against the order of the lower Appellate Authority. The tenant has filed the revision petition challenging the order of the Appellate Authority vide which the order of the Rent Controller ordering his eviction on the grounds of personal necessity and the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation has been affirmed. The landlord, on the other hand, has challenged the finding of the Appellate Authority with regard to the rate of rent.

(2.) BRIEFLY put the landlord filed eviction application on the ground of non-payment of rent, the demised premises having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the same is required for his own use and occupation after reconstructing the same. The tenant put in appearance and filed written statement denying the rate of rent and challenged the locus standi of the landlord to file the eviction application. Besides this, it was denied that the building is in dilapidated condition or that the landlord requires the same for his personal use and occupation.

(3.) THE Rent Controller vide order dated September 22, 1986, came to the conclusion that the landlord succeeded on the basis of Will (Exhibit A1) and as such had a right to institute the eviction application. As regards the rate of rent, the Rent Controller found the tender made by the tenant short for the reason that the tenant tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 170/- per month whereas the actual rent was at the rate of Rs. 275/- per month, claimed and found to be so by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller further came to the conclusion that the building is in a very dilapidated condition. He further found that the need of the landlord to occupy the premises is genuine. The Rent Controller accordingly ordered eviction of the respondent.