Anand Parkash Mangal vs Shri Ram Saran and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation Vide this Court order dated March 5, 1986, Civil Miscellaneous Application No, 777-CII of 1985 in this revision Petition, filed on behalf of the landlord, was allowed and the parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller on April 5, 1986, The Rent Controller was directed to send his report through the Appellate Authority as to find out whether the landlord required the premises for his personal requirement or not because no specific finding was given earlier by the authorities below in this behalf as it was held that the premises, in dispute, were non-residential. However, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shri Hari Mittal v. Shri B. M. Sikka (1986) 89 P.L.R. 1 (F.B.), it was no more disputed that since the premises formed part of a residential building, the landlord could seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity therefrom.

The detailed report of the Appellate Authority, dated September 8, 1986, affirming the findings of the Rent Controller, has been received in this Court. It has been held therein,-

For all the reasons stated, I am of the opinion that considering the additional evidence now brought on record by the Petitioner, the ground of personal necessity for the tenanted premises stand proved.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent contested the said finding of the Appellate Authority primarily on the ground that in the memo, of partition Exhibit AW10/A, there is a mention of the will and the gift but the landlord had not produced the said will and gift deed and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said memo, of partition. It was also contended that the said memo of partition was not admissible in evidence for want of registration and if once that is excluded, then no oral evidence could be produced to prove the factum of partition. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, there was no document to show the share of landlord in the demised premises and, therefore, the finding of the Appellate Authority are vitiated

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties,I, do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below, wherein it has been held that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation.

According to the Appellate Authority, the documents, i. e., Exhibits AW6/1, and AW10/1 the memoranda of partition ; plan. Exhibit AW10/7 and the master plan. Exhibit AW2/2, provide acceptable evidence to the factum of partition of the property in which the landlord had got the property marked 3 in the plan, Exhibit AW/2. It has been further found that there was a partition is inherent in the suggestion given to the PWs on behalf of the Respondents. There is absolutely no evidence of any substance brought on the record to disprove the partition or else to show that the evidence is false or fabricated. Thus, the authenticity of the documents, aforsaid, was not open to challenge in this revision petition. Moreover, whether the premises are bona fide required by the landlord or not is a finding of fact and could not be interfered with in this revision petition.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders of the authorities below are set aside and the eviction order is passed against the Respondents. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises ; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller, within one month with a further undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and for the said period, rent will be paid in advance by the tenth of every month.