JAI DEV PANDIT Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The landlady Santosh Kumari sought the ejectment of her tenant Jai Dev Pandit from the portion of the house in dispute situate near-Canal Rest House, Rohtak. The said building was rented on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. The ejectment was sought, inter alia, on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation as the present accommodation with her was insufficient. It was pleaded that there are four children in the family who were school going at the time when the ejectment application was filed on September 13, 1973. At present she was occupying one room only in the house owned by her mother-in-law which was not only insufficient, but the atmosphere there was not congenial for the family. In the written statement, these allegations were controverted. Ultimately the eviction order was passed in the first instance on October 29, 1974, by the Rent Controller. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on March 3, 1975. In the execution of the said order, the landlady took the possession of the demised premises on March 23, 1975. Later on, the eviction order was set aside in revision by the then Financial Commissioner on October 27, 1975, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision after pleading the necessary ingredients of section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). Against the order of the Financial Commissioner, the writ petition was also filed in this Court which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on February 28, 1983. On remand, the learned Rent Controller again passed the eviction order on December 9, 1983 which was maintained in appeal by the Appellate Authority vide order dated January 23, 1985. It is against this order that the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) It is not disputed that at present the landlady in occupation of the demised premises and she entered into possession on March 23, 1975, in execution of the eviction order, though the same was set aside subsequently in revision petition. In spite of that, the tenant could not get the possession restored to him. Meanwhile, again the eviction order was passed against the tenant by the Rent Controller on December 9, 1983. The learned counsel for the tenant challenged the concurrent findings of the authorities below on the ground that the evidence has been misread and that the documentary evidence brought on the record has not been properly appreciated. According to the learned counsel, the landlady was never in actual possession of the demised premises. Rather she let out the same to Vikas Hotel on an annual rent of the Rs. 6,000. This evidence, according to the learned counsel, has not been considered properly by the authorities below. Thus, it was argued that the finding to the effect that the landlady bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation was vitiated.