PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. JAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the appellate authority whereby the appellate authority while reversing the findings dated 12.6.2006 of the Rent Controller had ordered his eviction. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision petition as narrated therein are that originally Uttam Singh was the owner of the property in dispute and the same had come to the share of the respondent. The property in dispute was held to be rented out by Uttam Singh @ Rs. 400/- per month by the Civil Court. Uttam Singh died on 20.11.1997 and the petitioner had been admitting the respondent to be the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute. The tenant was in arrears of rent since August, 1997. The landlord had bona fide requirement of the shop in dispute for his own use and purpose as the said property was rented out to the tenant long back. The landlord was running a shoe shop on the Eastern side. Previously the shop in dispute was the part of main shop. Accordingly, the landlord filed a eviction petition on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity. In pursuance thereto, the tenant filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the suit for possession filed by the landlord had already been dismissed by the trial court and appeal thereof had also been dismissed. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the petition was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-

(2.) On appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the tenant holding that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide. Accordingly, the Rent Controller vide order dated 12.6.2006 dismissed the eviction petition. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal before the appellate authority who vide order dated 31.8.2007 allowed the appeal holding that the landlord was entitled to the ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute. The tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord within a period of two months from the date of order. Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord-respondent had sought eviction on two grounds, namely, nonpayment of rent and personal necessity. He further submitted that the demised premises were let out in 1993 and the Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the eviction petition holding that there was no personal bona fide requirement. It was argued that the landlord had sought eviction on the ground that he wants to expand his business of shoes whereas there are neither pleadings nor any evidence has been adduced by the landlord to that effect. According to the learned counsel, in view of the judgment of this Court in Girdhari Lal Jain v. Smt. Sushil Rani, 1980 2 RCR(Rent) 117no inference could have been drawn by implication with regard to the plea of bona fide requirement from the pleadings unless it was explicit in its words. Reliance was placed upon the cross-examination of the landlord-respondent who had appeared as AW 1 to contend that the requirement of the landlord was not genuine. Support was also drawn from R, Akbar Basha v. B. Maruthi, 2000 1 RCR(Rent) 188 (Karnataka) and Shankarlal v. Smt. Kamla Devi Nayak, 2001 2 RCR(Rent) 542 (MP) by urging that unless it was specifically pleaded or stated that the shop is required for extending the business, the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide.