DHARAM PAL GROVER Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Una passed in Rent Appeal No.58 of 2001 decided on 8.10.2002 whereby he has allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and set-aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the landlord.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is admittedly a tenant in the demised premises under the respondent-landlord. The landlord inherited these premises from his paternal uncle and thereafter filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on various grounds. The tenant contested the petition. The learned Rent Controller only allowed the eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and dismissed the petition on other grounds. The landlord went up in appeal and the learned lower Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal of the tenant and came to the conclusion that the landlord boanfide requires the premises for his use and occupation.

(3.) THE landlord before the trial Court had appeared as PW-1. All that he had stated in his evidence was that the house in which he is residing is an old one and the bath room and kitchen is in one room. There is no provision for cross ventilation. He had one son and one daughter. With regard to his bonafide requirement the landlord did not whisper a word. He in his statement stated that he is in occupation of two rooms out of which one room is used as kitchen- cum-bath room. On the other hand his own witness PW-2 had stated that the landlord is in possession of 3 rooms which are in his occupation. The landlord while appearing in the witness box did not make any statement as to what is the exact area which is in his occupation, what is the area in the occupation of the tenant and what is the requirement of the landlord. The landlord, no-doubt is the best judge of his requirement but when he comes to the Court and seeks eviction of a tenant, he must tell the Court what is his requirement. It is only then that the Court can judge whether the requirement stated by the tenant is bonafide or not. The statement of the landlord in this case is totally cryptic. He in his statement has not spelt out his requirement and has not made out any case for eviction of the tenant.