BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. SANJAY GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 6.5.2011 of the Rent Controller, Ambala, ordering its eviction from the premises in dispute and the judgment dated 3.12.2011 of the Appellate Authority, whereby its appeal was dismissed against the aforesaid order of eviction. The respondent -landlord had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner was a tenant in the premises in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/ - excluding electricity, water and house tax etc. and the petitioner -tenant was liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non -payment of rent, bona fide necessity of the respondent -landlord and impairing the value and utility of the building etc.

(2.) UPON notice, the petitioner filed its reply raising various preliminary objections. On merits, relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was further stated that as per the agreement dated 18.7.2002, the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent -landlord at monthly rent of Rs. 8000/ - per month excluding electricity charges. All the taxes were to be paid by the landlord. The petitioner was paying rent regularly in time through cheques which have been encashed. The petitioner was also not in arrears of rent and had not made any alteration or damage to the flooring of the whole building. It was stated that the allegations are concocted and false. A further plea was taken that as per Clause 17 of the agreement dated 18.7.2002, it was settled between the parties that in case of any dispute, doubt or difference, matter shall be referred to sole arbitration of the Member Service, Department of Telecommunication, BSNL, GMT, Ambala. The landlord has not approached the Arbitrator as per agreement. The other averments were denied and dismissal of the petition was prayed.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence on record, the Rent Controller held that the respondent -landlord has failed to prove that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and that the petitioner has impaired the value and utility of the property in dispute. However, the ground of personal necessity of the landlord was held to be proved. Thus, it was held that the respondent -landlord was entitled to eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide need and personal necessity. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the rent petition was held to be maintainable and eviction of the petitioner was ordered from the premises in dispute.