LAWS(P&H)-1989-1-68

POONA DEVI Vs. SAT NARAIN

Decided On January 19, 1989
POONA DEVI Appellant
V/S
SAT NARAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord-petitioner sought the ejectment of his tenant Sat Narain (respondent) from a portion of the rented land, on the allegations that the tenant was inducted on payment of Rs. 800/- per annum; that he was in arrears of rent with effect from 1st September, 1976 and that the said rented land was required by her for running a workshop for repairs and maintenance of motor vehicles in partnership with her husband and others. She also stated that she was not occupying any other rented land and had not vacated any such rented land without any sufficient cause. The tenant controverted these allegations by way of written statement. It was averred that the application was mala fide and that previously also an application was filed by the landlady for his ejectment but was rejected.

(3.) PENDING decision of this petition, the landlady moved C.M. No. 2840-CII/1987 dated 27th May, 1987, in which it was stated that the site in dispute was let out to Sat Narain, respondent, for running the coal depot; that the respondent has since left the business of the depot and is not using the site in dispute for any purpose whatsoever that he has left the business for the last over three or four years and the entire site in dispute is lying vacant. However, the real brother of Sat Narain, namely, Shri Naresh Kumar, has put up a wooden khokha of the dimension of 8' x 8' approximately in a corner of the site in dispute where the said Naresh Kumar, the brother of Sh. St Narain, respondent is selling paints, it was further averred. According to the petitioner further, the tenant is not vacating that site as he wants to harras her; otherwise the same is no more required by him having been vacated by him already. Notice of this application was given to the counsel for respondent/tenant on 31st July, 1987. In spite of it, no reply has been filed controverting the allegations made therein.