THAKUR DASS Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by the authorities below.

(2.) Parkash Chand, landlord-respondent, sought the ejectment of his tenant-petitioner from the Chaubara, in dispute, inter alia 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, the plea taken was that the premises, in dispute, were rented out to him for the commercial use for which he had seen using the same and that the landlord never raised any objection, were not a residential building. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that in the absence of any rent note, the tenant had failed to prove that the chaubara was given to him on rent for commercial purpose; rather from the receipt, Exhibit A-1, it was proved that it was let out for residential purposes only. It was also found that the landlord bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the receipt, Exhibit A-1 could not be relied upon by the authorities below and, therefore, the finding arrived at was vitiated. According to the learned counsel, the Chaubara, in dispute, was given for commercial purpose and not for residential purpose, as alleged by the landlord.