BODH RAJ Vs. R.R. NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE premises in dispute is the ground floor in H. No. 1149, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh, which was rented to the tenant R.R. Nagpal, respondent somewhere in September, 1980. The ejectment application was filed on 16th July, 1983, on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that in 1979, the landlord was occupying Government accommodation but as the same was insufficient he shifted to the house of his mother in H.No. 735, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, and that now his mother was pressing him hard to vacate her premises. In the written statement, it was pleaded by the tenant that in November, 1980, the first floor of the house in dispute was vacated by the tenant and the same was again rented out to another tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- which was increased in the year 1983 Rs. 450/- per month and, therefore, the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide, and it was only a made-up story. However, in the replication, the landlord admitted that the said portion was vacated by the tenant but at the same time he pleaded that he wanted to occupy the ground floor of the house in dispute as the present accommodation was insufficient to meet his requirement. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide because his wife could not climb up-stairs and it was for this reason that he did not occupy the first floor when it was vacated by the tenant in the year 1980. Thus, on the finding it was held that non-shifting of the landlord in the year 1981 when the first floor of the house in question fell vacant does not at all make the present petition mala fide. As a result of this finding, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding on the ground that there was no cogent explanation as to why the landlord did not occupy the first floor when it was vacated in the year 1981. According to the Appellate Authority the landlord stated that he could not shift to the first floor being a patient of hypertension for which there is no evidence to support the said plea. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the view taken by the Appellate Authority was illegal and improper, and that the landlord never stated that he could not shift to the first floor being a patient of hyper-tension. In his statement he has stated that he did not shift to the floor of the house in dispute because his wife could not climb up-stairs, and the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the first floor could not be occupied by the landlord under the circumstances. Thus argued the learned counsel taking in consideration the evidence on record and the subsequent events, the requirement of the landlord was most genuine and bonafide.