BALDEV RAM Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner/landlord impugns the orders of learned Rent Controller dated 7.9.2000 and that of the Appellate Court dated 25.2.2002. The petitioner who sought the eviction of the respondent -tenant from the demised premises which is a shop on the ground of personal necessity and non payment of rent and house tax. The only surviving question which remains to be adjudicated and was done so by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Court was the issue of personal necessity pleaded by the petitioner. The petitioner had set up a plea that he required the premises to set up a business for his son. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court dismissed the petition essentially on the ground that since there was another shop available with the petitioner whose tenant had abdicated the premises and left it locked and the petitioner not having initiated proceedings against the said tenant, there was a presumption that the need was not bona fide.

(2.) ON due consideration of the matter, I am of the view that reasoning adopted by the Courts below are erroneous and perverse. The settled proposition of law on the issue of personal necessity have been totally ignored by adopting such a reasoning. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., : 1998(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 533 (S.C.), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

(3.) IN Atma S. Berar Versus Mukhtiar Singh, : 2003(1) Rent Control Reporter 42 (S.C.), it has been held as under: -