CHAND RANI ETC Vs. PREM DAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This landlords petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant from the premises in dispute consisting of a residential building primarily on the ground that they bona fide required the same for their use and occupation. It was also pleaded that the accommodation already in their occupation was inadequate and insufficient for their requirement. It was further pleaded that they have not vacated any house after the coming into force of the Rent Restriction Act without any sufficient cause. The petition was contested and it was pleaded that the landlords did not require the demised premises bona fide for their own use and occupation as the accommodation in their occupation is more than enough to meet their requirement. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlords have not come to the Court with clean hands and thus, the ejectment application was not a bona fide one. What has weighed with the learned Rent Controller was that the landlords concealed the fact that there are two other buildings in their occupation which fact was not disclosed by them in the ejectment application. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the two plans Exs. R-1 and R-2 relating to two buildings produced by the tenant have absolutely no relevance in order to reach the conclusion that the landlords bona fide required the premises for their use and occupation. According to the learned counsel, as regards building shown in Ex. R-1, it is non-residential and as regards Building No. 175, the plan of which is Ex. R-2, the total area given therein is 24' x 22'. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, these plans were never put to the landlord when he came into the witness box and the tenant Smt. Prem Dai who appeared as RW-3 admitted that these two houses are ancestral property. According to her statement, the landlord was residing in house No. 175 (Plan Ex. R-2) which is patently false.