BHIWANI TEXTILE MILLS, BHIWANI Vs. RAM LAL RAJGARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord Ram Lal Rajgaria sought the ejectment of his tenant M/s Bhiwani Textile Mills from the demised premises which were a residential house and were given on rent in April, 198, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2400/- including taxes. The ejectment was sought, inter alia on the grounds that landlord required the premises in question for his own use and occupation and that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility thereof. The stand taken by the tenant was that the landlord did not require the premises, in question, for his own use and occupation as the accommodation already in his occupation was sufficient for him and his family and that he had also another residential building at Bhiwani. It was denied that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premise, as alleged. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had fully proved that he required the tenanted premise for his own use and occupation bonafide. It was also found that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing a pucca shed of a large size in the open space of the premises by installing a monoblock pumping set with the Municipal water-supply and also by connecting the air-conditioner with the three phase main meter with open and kutcha wiring. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on March 26, 1987. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submitted that the landlord's family consists of 12 members, out of whom two are married sons. One son had been married in the year 1986 and, therefore, taking into consideration the family members of the landlord, his requirement was most bonafide. The premises were let out to the tenant in April, 1984. At that time, he was occupying a house consisting of two rooms belonging to the T.I.T. where the landlord was in service. The rent paid by him was only Rs. 15.50 per month. Now, during the pendency of the revision petition, he has retired and therefore, he was no more entitled to the said accommodation. In these circumstances, argued the learned counsel, the requirement of the landlord was most bonafide and has been rightly so found by the two authorities below.