BHIM SAIN Vs. SANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlord-petitioner, Dr. Bhim Sain, purchased the premises, in dispute, from Gauri Shankar, the original landlord, vide registered sale deed dt. Sept. 16, 1980. recording to the landlord, the premises were rented out to the tenant, Sant Lal, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- by the original landlord Gauri Shankar and after their purchase he had become the owner and the landlord thereof. The ejectment application was filed on Oct. 25, 1980, inter alia on the grounds that the premises, in question, were required for the personal residence as the landlord had no other accommodation in the urban area concerned and that the premises had also become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the tenancy was at the rate of Rs. 50/- and not Rs. 20/- per month as alleged. It was maintained that the building, in question, was quite safe and fit for human habitation. It was denied that the landlord bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation. On the question of bona fide requirement, the learned tent Controller found that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide requirement to occupy the same. According to the Rent Controller, the landlord intentionally purchased the property which was occupied by the tenant at a very ordinary rent and, therefore, it could not be said that the ejectment application was bona fide. At the same time, it was also observed that it may be true that the landlord is the sole judge of his requirements, but it is established law that the claim of the petitioner has to be scrutinised by the Court. In view of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller with the observations,- "The mere assertion that son wants to live separate from his father is not sufficient to prove his bona fide need." Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord had filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord required the premises for his own occupation it being his only house. Therefore, the question of bona fides was alien for consideration and need not at all be gone into unless there were compelling circumstances to disbelieve the version of the landlord. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Anandhayee Ammal v. S.M. Khaja and Co., (1967) 1 Mad LJ 368. The learned counsel further contended that as the landlord wanted to live separately from his father, he purchased the house, in dispute, for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and, therefore, his requirement to occupy the same was most bona fide. The mere fact that he had purchased the property which was occupied by the tenant at the time of the sale, did not mean that the eviction application was not bona fide.