URMIL KUMARI SHARMA Vs. K.D.SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the landlord 'srevision against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner -landlady seeking eviction of the respondent -tenant from the demised premises.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted eviction proceedings against the respondent on the allegation that the premises were required bona fide for use and occupation by her and her family consisting of her son, daughter -in -law, and two minor grand -children. It was pleaded that she was owner of the suit premises known as Kuldip Niwas, Chhota Shimla. The respondent was in occupation of one room, one kitchen -cum -bath room in the ground floor of the building. In her sworn testimony as PW -1, she proved that her family consisted of herself, her son who was serving in the Indian Army, his wife and two minor children studying in school at Shimla. PW -2 Smt. Vinay Sharma, daughter -in -law of the landlady corroborated the case of the petitioner on all material particulars. She testified that her husband was a Captain in the Army and was serving in a field area. At the relevant time, her son was 5 -1/2 years old and a minor daughter aged two years. Both the landlady and her daughter -in - law have stated that the premises were required bona fide for their occupation and the children are being educated in Shimla where they intend to stay.

(3.) THE learned trial Court, on a conspectus of the evidence, concluded that the landlady -petitioner did not require premises bona fide for her accommodation. Basing his conclusions on an appraisal of evidence and by following the decision in M.M. Qasim V/s. Manohar Lal, held that the requirement pleaded did not satisfy the statutory requirement of bona fide use and occupation and may have been motivated by the whim of the landlady. He did not believe the statement of PW -2 Smt. Vijay Sharma that the basement is not suitable for her occupation as it has developed dampness etc. He also holds that the grand -children of the landlady who are studying in Shimla do not require separate rooms for any purpose. He becomes speculative when he considers the evidence of PW -2 who states that the rank of her husband entitles him to an orderly who according to the learned authority will be provided a room by the Army authorities. Strangely enough, he observes "But in my opinion when her husband is posted out of the Urban Area of Shimla he is not entitled for said orderly. If he is posted at Shimla then no doubt he will get an orderly but the said orderly in my opinion will get also the separate Government accommodation." What is the basis for coming to this conclusion is unclear. How he arrives at these conclusions, remains clouded in the realm of doubt. Needless to say, the statutory duty of the Rent Controller was to have ascertained the bona fide need of the landlady and not to have dictated the same through his reasoning. How he concludes that children do not require separate room for study etc. is again "unclear. Evidence of PW -2 Vinay Sharma that the basement remains damp being unrebutted, is doubted by him. The basis for reaching this firm conclusion again are conjectural.