MANMOHAN SARUP BHATNAGAR Vs. YASHWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 10th June, 1971 Yashwant Rai filed an ejectment petition against his tenants on the ground of personal necessity. Till the ejectment order was finally passed by the Rent Controller, dated 28th May, 1979, several times, there were appeals to the Appellate Authority and there were remand orders. For that reason it took about 8 years. The Rent Controller finally found that the landlord was able to prove his personal necessity to occupy the house in dispute. The tenant took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority in its laboured judgment dated 4th April, 1981 came to the conclusion that the landlord had fully proved his claim for personal necessity and after endorsing the findings of the Rent Controller dismissed the appeal. This is tenant's revision.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on persual of the record I am of the opinion that there is no scope for interference with the two Courts below, on questions of fact. The learned counsel appearing for the tenants, in the first instance, argued that additional issues Nos. 7-C and 7-D were framed but these issues have neither been decided by the Rent Controller nor by the Appellate Authority. It is true that in the order of the Rent Controller, there is no mention of issues Nos. 7-C and 7-D. It appears that the technical matters covered by issues Nos. 7-C and 7-D were not raised by the tenants before the Rent Controller and that is why there was no mention in the judgment. This fact is clearly borne out from the fact that no ground of appeal was raised in this behalf before the Appellate Authority. I have perused the grounds of appeal. No ground was taken that the Rent Controller failed to decide issue Nos. 7-C and 7-D inspite of the fact that the matter was argued. Not only that the matter was not raised in grounds of appeal, this matter was not even urged before the Appellate Authority. Hence no argument can be allowed to be raised at the revision stage and it will be deemed that this matter was not pressed on behalf of the tenants in any of the two Courts below.

(3.) ON merits it was urged that two rooms in the house in dispute were available for the residence of the landlord. Both the Courts below have found that these two rooms were not sufficient for the landlord to live in without other amenities like kitchen, bath room and latrine. He has clearly stated that for the present his driver is living there and he belongs to such a family that his living in the two rooms without proper amenities would not be desirable. He has clearly stated that if the house is vacated the driver will be shifted elsewhere and after renovation of the house he will occupy the same. Even remotely it is not shown that the landlord wanted ejectment with any ulterior motive. Law has provided sufficient safeguard in such case that in case the landlord does not occupy the house within a year of the ejectment, the tenant can come forward to claim back possession.