RAJESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. M/S. KAMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) RAJESH Kumar Jain, landlord sought to ejectment of his tenants from the residential house, No. BIX 185 situated on the first floor as there are shops underneath thereto on the ground floor. The premises were let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The ejectment application filed on October 1, 1980, on the grounds that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was pleaded that the portion shown in the red colour in the site plan was in a dilapidated condition and that half of the portion had fallen down due to rains. The remaining part of the building was also in a very bad state and was about to fall any moment. As regards the personal requirement, it was stated that the landlord was living at Amritsar whereas all his relations were living at Ludhiana. He also wanted to settle at Ludhiana. He was carrying the business of yarn at Amritsar, but he wanted to shift his residence as well as his busincess to Ludhiana. He was 21 years old, unmarried and wanted to have his marriage at Ludhiana. In the written statement, the tenant denied that the premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was further pleaded that the application for eviction had been filed to pressurise the tenants to increase the rent. The landlord did not require the same for his personal use and occupation as he was living in Amritsar. The property, in dispute, was also used for commercial purpose and, therefore, it was non-residential. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the building, in question was very old and being in a deteriorated condition, had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was also founded that the premises, in dispute, were bonafide requires for personal use and occupation by the landlord. In view of these findings the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that neither the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation, nor the requirement of the landlord was bonafide. According to the Appellate Authority, both the pleas were inconsistent and, therefore, the eviction application could not be said to be a bonafide one. Moreover, according to the Appellate Authority, the landlord has not proved on the record that he had submitted any plan to the Municipal Committee for reconstructing the house. In view of those findings, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for his parties and has also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.