SANTOSH MEHRA Vs. M.L. AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlady sought the ejectment of her tenant Dr. M.L. Aggarwal from the building, in dispute, which was rented out to him vide rent note mark A, dated May 30, 1971, at a monthly rent of Rs. 850/-. The eviction petition was filed on December 20, 1975, wherein the tenant's eviction was sought on the ground that he had sublet the building, he had ceased to occupy it for a period of more than four months without reasonable cause, he was using the same for the purpose other than the one for which it was leased out to him and that the landlady required it for her own use and occupation. The petition was contested on behalf of the tenant. The learned Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant from the building, in dispute, on the grounds of subletting and it having not been occupied by the tenant for more than four months without any reasonable cause. The other grounds of eviction taken by the landlady were negatived. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on the above-said two grounds and came to the conclusion that since there was a partnership between the tenant and his son, the question of subletting the premises by the tenant did not arise. Before the Appellate Authority, the landlady also contested the findings of the Rent Controller as regards her bonafide requirement. However, no finding was given by the Appellate Authority thereto. Earlier, this Court vide order dated August 6, 1982, sent for a report from the Appellate Authority in regard to the personal requirement of the landlady. The report dated October 11, 1982, was submitted by the Appellate Authority to this Court, wherein it was found that no case of personal necessity was made out. No objections were filed to the said report by the landlady.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record and the case law cited at the bar.