JIYA RAM Vs. PURSHOTAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent sought the ejectment of his tenant, Jiya Ram petitioner, from the premises, in dispute, which consisted of a room on the second floor of the building which was rented out to him at the rate of Rs. 9/- per month. His ejectment therefrom was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlord bona-fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, the landlord's bona-fide need of the demised premises was controverted. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord did not require the premises in dispute, bona-fide his for own use and occupation. It was observed by the Rent Controller that the landlord had admitted that the house in which the tenant was living had three rooms which were lying vacant and unoccupied. If the landlord had the necessity, he could shift to the said portion. The plea of the landlord that he wanted to reconstruct the house after pulling it down was not believed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation as his family consisted of his wife and three children. It was observed that in the building in which they were living they had one room and one Kothari in their possession. As a result, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AD regards the demised premises, the local Commissioner found that therein Sh. Hari Chand Jain son of Kanshi Ram Jain, a Veterinary doctor claimed himself to be a tenant on a portion consisting of two rooms and a kitchen without paying any rent for the last three and a half years. Thus, the report of the local Commissioner, it is quite evident that the stand taken by the landlord in his affidavit dated May 29, 1984, was found to be false. Thus, the finding of the Appellate Authority that the landlord bonafide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation is wrong and illegal. Under the Circumstances, the requirement of the demised premises by the landlord could not be held to be bonafide at all when there is sufficient accommodation available with him in the house purchased by him in the name of his son. Besides some portion which had fallen vacant in the demised premises could also be occupied by him in case he bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. Having failed to do so ejectment application was liable to be dismissed.