OM KUMAR JAIN Vs. RAJ KUMAR SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition for eviction sought on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord to carry on the building work of demolition of the demised premises on the ground that it had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was upheld by the Rent Controller. The order of ejectment was reversed by the Appellate Authority and consequently, the landlord is the revision petitioner before this Court.

(2.) AT the threshold the tenant sought to contend that he had taken the property on rent only from Smt. Anjana Devi and the landlord who claimed to be a purchaser had never informed him about the so-called purchase. His further contention was that the sale in his favour itself was sham. The Rent Controller rejected such a contention by reference to rent receipts, which the tenant himself had filed and exhibited as R-42 to R-53, which contained the signatures of the landlord. The Rent Controller also reasoned that the sale itself cannot be questioned by the tenant. He upheld the contention of the landlord of his personal requirement, who, as per the averments made in the petition, contended that he was an Ex-Army officer and that he had done his degree in law and wanted to use the premises for establishing his office. On the other ground urged by the landlord of demolition of the building for construction since it had become unsafe for human habitation, the Rent Controller adverted to the unchallenged version of the landlord that the building was old and decrepit and the access to the first floor which he had purchased along with the ground floor was itself possible only if a stair way made by demolition of the ground floor within the boundary of his entitlement.

(3.) AS regards the requirements of the personal need of the landlord, even the Appellate Authority found the need to be genuine and had specifically given a finding that the landlord who had retired from military service required the premises for establishing his office as an advocate. However, an order of ejectment did not follow in view of the finding by him that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, I uphold the claim of the landlord for ejectment on this ground.