VIJAY KUMAR Vs. BALDEV SAHAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having lost from both the courts below, the tenant is before this court challenging his eviction from the shop in question.

(2.) The premises were taken on rent by the petitioner on 15.12.1986. The eviction petition was filed by the respondents on 4.9.2006 after the shop was purchased by them vide sale deed dated 12.5.2003. The grounds on which the eviction was sought were arrears of rent, personal necessity and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Both the courts below, on the basis of evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the shop in question on the ground of personal necessity as well as on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had not been able to prove the fact that in fact, there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The case set up by them was that the shop in question was purchased by them vide sale deed dated 12.5.2003. Undisputedly, the petitioner had taken the premises on rent on 15.12.1986. However, it was not disputed that till such time the respondents had purchased the premises in dispute, the petitioner had been paying rent regularly to the erstwhile owner thereof and thereafter rent was not paid by him. It was tendered only in court. He further submitted that in the absence of any evidence on record regarding ownership of the respondents, the eviction of the petitioner could not be sought by them. He further submitted that to prove the fact that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, an expert was produced, however, he could not prove his qualification or expertise for the job performed by him.