SHRI BALBIR SINGH Vs. SHRI ADARSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord, Balbir Singh, sought the ejectment of his tenant Adarsh Kumar from the rented land measuring 8 feet x 6 feet, which was rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/ - vide rent note dated 28 -1 -1975. The rent note was executed in favour of Smt. Basant Kuar, mother of the landlord, who died meanwhile and the landlord being the sole heir became the owner -cum -landlord of the demised premises The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the tenant had constructed a Khokha on the demised premises for running his business of stationery and that the landlord required the demised premises for the construction of his clinic/ consulting room for his medical practice and he had no other land in his possession nor he had vacated any. The stand taken by the tenant was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was denied that the landlord required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation as to enable him to carry out his medical practice. According to the tenant, the landlord had other rented land in his occupation. The learned Rent Controller on the appreciation of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that it has been established on the record that the landlord bona fide required the demised premises for his own use for running his homeopathy clinic there. In view of this finding the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller on the ground that the landlord has in his possession two rooms in his residential house for the purpose of running his clinic and that being so his requirement could not be said to be bona fide. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find merit in this petition. The whole approach of the learned appellate authority in this behalf was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. The mere fact that the landlord was using two rooms in his residential building for running his clinic was no ground to non suit him because there is no finding that the landlord was having any other rented land in his occupation or has vacated any such rented land after the commencement of the Act. Moreover, no such plea was taken by the tenant in his written statement and, therefore, the landlord could not be taken by surprise in this behalf. He could explain in what circumstances he was running his medical practice in his residential house for the time being till he gets his tenant ejected. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing eviction of the tenant is restored with costs.