SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. DARSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlady Shakuntla Devi sought ejectment of her tenants from the house in dispute claiming that her father-in-law Basheshar Nath was the owner of the demised house and he had rented out the same to Om Parkash tenant who died subsequently and the respondents are in occupation of the premises as his heirs and legal representatives. The premises were let out vide rent note dated 6.5.1971 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The ejectment was sought inter alia, on the grounds that she bonafide requires the premises for her own use and occupation; that the tenant have impaired the value and utility of the demised premises; and that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was further pleaded that at present the landlady is occupying a rented house belonging to one Raj Kumar Jain who is pressing hard for eviction of the same. Moreover, even that rented house was an old building and not fit for human habitation. In the written reply the said allegations were controverted. The tenants even denied the relationships of landlord and tenant between the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that from the evidence on the record, particularly the report of the local Commissioner Exhibit A.2, it is amply proved that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the findings of the authorities below were wrong, illegal and against evidence. It was further contended that bonafide requirement of the landlady has been found by the authorities below but she has been non-suited on the ground that she was already in occupation of the rented premises belonging to Raj Kumar Jain. According to the learned counsel the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, (1980 (1) RCR 592 (DB) 1980 P.L.R. 613 was explained later on by Full Bench in Ramesh Kumar v. Atma Devi, 1985 (1), P.L.R. 751 and in view of that judgment the landlady was entitled to eject her tenants because the rented premises were not sufficient for her needs nor the building was fit for human habitation. As regards the necessary ingredients, it was submitted that nothing was concealed from the Court and that being so, it could not be held that the necessary ingredients were not impleaded. In support of this contention, reference was made to Duggi Veera Venkata Gopala Satyanarayana v. Sakala Veera Raghavaiah and another, (1987 RCR Page 186) 1986 IV S.V.L.R. (C) 455.