JIWAN DASS Vs. DEVI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the letters Patent after the case was certified as fit one for appeal by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, reversed the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal and restored that of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had allowed the application of the landlady for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute. The ground on which the eviction was sought and allowed Was that the landlady bona fide required the premises for her personal use. The application by the landlady was resisted by the tenant on the ground that the landlady was in possession of premises which were reasonably sufficient to meet her requirement. On the other

(2.) HAND , the plea raised by the landlady was that the premises in which she was living were rented premises, the building was over 60 years old, its wooden rafters had been eaten by white -ants, the walls had cracked, the roofs were leaking and the building was unfit for human habitation. No rebuttal was led by the Appellant -tenant against the stand taken up by the landlady. The Rent Controller found that the premises which were in the occupation of the landlady were in such a state that her need to occupy her own property by eviction of the tenant was justified. In this view of the matter, her application was allowed. The tenant appealed against this decision to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, maintained the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the nature of the premises which were in the actual possession of the landlady and from which she wanted to shift to the premises in dispute. The Tribunal however took the view that the premises in the actual occupation of the landlady could be set right by repairs and, therefore, there was no bona fide requirement which justified the landlady to shift from the premises actually occupied by her to the premises in dispute. The Tribunal further took the view that the landlady had not asked her landlord to repair the premises and therefore, it could not be said that her requirement in the circumstances, was bona fide as to justify the eviction of her tenant from the premises in dispute. In this view of the matter, it reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application of the landlady. Against this decision, the landlady preferred on appeal to this Court. That appeal came up for disposal before Khanna J, who allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the Tribunal and restored that of the Rent Controller. On application made to Khanna J. under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, he certified the case to be fit one for further appeal and that is how the matter has been placed before us.

(3.) MR . D.K. Kapur, who appears for the Appellant -tenant, contended that the above cited case is wrongly decided and that it runs counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Sewing Thread Company Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd., ILR (1960) 1 P&H 589 :, 1960 P.L.R. 1; This decision was noticed by the Division Bench, but, according to the learned Counsel, was not correctly interpreted. In view of the fact that there is no merit in the appeal itself, we have thought it fit not to examine and decide this contention.