VIDYA WANTI Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) SHRIMATI Vidya Wanti, the landlady, purchased the house, in dispute, vide sale deed dated May 25, 1981, copy Exhibit A-1, for a sum of Rs. 18,500/- from the original owner and the landlord Tara Chand. She sought the ejectment of the tenant Shrimati Shanti Devi and other heirs of Shiv Dayal who was the tenant on the demised premises at the time of their sale by the then landlord and had died in year 1983. The ejectment was sought on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation and that the present accommodation in the occupation of her husband was insufficient. In reply filed on behalf of the tenants, the allegations made in the ejectment application were controverted. It was pleaded that the house, in dispute, was not required by the landlady for her personal use and occupation. It was even denied that the landlady was the owner of the house, in dispute. As such, it was pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller found that there did exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the landlady bonafide required the demised premises for her own use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller primarily on the ground that the landlady had not led any evidence that the accommodation in her occupation was insufficient and that the demised premises were more comfortable to her. She also did not take any plea regarding the number of her children and their ages and whether they were married or not. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed against the tenants was set aside.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority is wholly misconceived.