CHINT RAM Vs. URMILA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the same premises and eviction of the tenants has been ordered on the same grounds i.e. reconstruction and rebuilding which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated.

(2.) AT the time when these revisions were taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -landlord submitted that the revision petitions have become infructuous as vacant possession of the premises have been handed over to the respondent -landlord by the petitioner -tenants. This statement is not disputed, however, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that irrespective of this fact, point in law urged regarding the requirement of landlord has to be determined as in case this is decided in favour of the tenants they would be entitled to the possession of the tenanted premises.

(3.) TO assess bonafide requirement of the landlord, the learned Rent Controller followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and holding that the quality of evidence should be of such a nature which establishes the bonafide requirement of a landlord and not a mere whim or wish which is statutorily impermissible. The evidence has been discussed in detail by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Authority reassessed the evidence and held that the landlord requires the premises bonafide for reconstruction etc. In these circumstances, the order of eviction passed against the tenants was affirmed.