BISHAN DASS Vs. KHEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord Bishan Dass sought the ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that he had six children, three sons and three daughters, who were aged 13 years, 11 years & 8 years and 20 years, 17 years and 15 years respectively at the time of filing the application in February, 1979. It was categorically pleaded that the present accommodation in his occupation was insufficient for the grown up children. Another ground for ejectment was non-payment of arrears of rent for three years at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant. It was pleaded that the rent was Rs. 40/- per month and rent prior to December, 1978 had already been paid and from December, 1978 onwards the rent was tendered on the first date of hearing. The ground of personal necessity was denied.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller found that the rent was Rs. 40/- per month as claimed by the tenant and not Rs. 100/- as alleged by the landlord. However, on the question of payment of arrears of rent it was found that since the tenant was not in possession of any documentary evidence to prove payment of the rent prior to December, 1978, the tender made on the first date of hearing was invalid.

(3.) IN appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller. It was found that since the landlord was found to be false on the question of rate of rent, his plea that no rent was paid for three years could not be accepted. Moreover, no receipt was ever issued by the landlord, and therefore the question of producing any documentary evidence on behalf of the tenant did not arise. Thus, it was concluded that the tender made on the first date of hearing was valid. As regards the question of personal necessity, the learned appellate authority found that the landlord has not specified the comparative figures of the area in his possession and in possession of the tenant in the ejectment application to show that the area in his occupation was insufficient for his use. According to the appellate authority, it amounts to failure to furnish the ingredients which entail the dismissal of the ejectment petition. It was also found that the demised premises are situated in a different Mohalla and, therefore, the question of occupying the same as such did not arise. In view of these findings, eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.