SAT PAL SHARMA Vs. TELU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has teen dismissed by both the authorities below. Samitran Sharma was originally the landlady. She had sold a portion of House No. E. G. 869/b IX-1-1028 for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- vide registered sale deed dated 20-4-1981 in favour of Sat Pal Sharma, the present petitioner-landlord. Telu Ram Sharma who was tenant under Samitran Sharma automatically became tenant under the present petitioner landlord The tenant is in occupation of the tenanted premises at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month. His ejectment was sought inter alia on the grounds that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. His family consists of his wife, old mother and two school going children. Presently he is in occupation of one room and a kitchen on the ground floor. This accommodation is most inadequate and insufficient for his needs and reasonable requirements

(2.) THE application was resisted on behalf of the tenant on the ground that the application has been filed with malafide intention. The Landlord claimed excessive rent intentionally because he had already paid rent upto May, 1982 However, the arrears of rest as claimed were tendered on the first date of hearing. It was also pleaded that the landlord does not require the demised premises for his personal use and occupation because he is in possession of four rooms, two Mranis, kitchen and the court-yard whereas earlier he was in possession of only one room. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord does not require the demised premises for his personal U6e and occupation' bonafide. As a consequence thereof, the application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority found that the sale transaction in favour of the landlord on behalf of the original landlady Smt. Samitran Sharma was not a bonafide one. It was made only to eject the tenant It was also found that the landlord was in possession of the ground floor consisting of four rooms one kitchen etc Consequently the order of dismissing the ejectment application was maintained.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the authorities below was wrong and illegal. There is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner was in possession of four rooms as found by the Appellate Authority. He is in possession of only one room and that too as a tenant in the building of which the demised premises is a part. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, the sale transaction, as such, was never challenged it the written statement and in the absence of any plea or an issue, it could not be held that the sale transaction was not a bonafide one. This argued the learned counsel that the whole approach of the authorities below was misconceived. On the other band, learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that only a part of the building was sold to the present landlord in order to evict the tenant. Earlier the tenant himself had filed an application under Section 10 of the Rent Act. On 27-4-1981 the same was allowed. Thus argued the learned counsel, on 27 4-1981 it was never disclosed the demised premises have already been sold to Sat Pal on 20-4-1981 as claimed now be further submitted that the demised premises are not adjoining the room which is inoccupation of the landlord as tenant of Smt. Samitran Sharma and therefore, it could not be said that the landlord bonafide required the premises for hi* own use and occupation.