KANTI MOHAN GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose eviction application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE demised premises were let out for use to the Posts and Telegraph Department, Taraori on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/-. At that time the landlord was employed as an Assistant Medical Officer and was posted at village Dhoj, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon. The landlord retired from service and, therefore, filed the ejectment application on September 21, 1978, seeking the ejectment of the tenant therefrom primarily on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the landlord did not require the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation, as alleged; rather he wanted to enhance the rent for which he had been asking it repeatedly. Besides, the premises were let out for non-residential purposes and, therefore, could not be got vacated for residential purposes. The learned Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord was most bonafide and consequently, passed the eviction order against it. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority without going into the question of bonafide requirement of the demised premises by the landlord, set aside the order of eviction on the ground that the premises having been let out to the Department of Posts and Telegraph, were not residential premises within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1976, (hereinafter called the Act) and, therefore, no ejectment could be sought of the tenant therefrom on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do find merit in this revision petition.