Neeraj Kumar vs Arya Samaj

Alok Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

This petition is preferred challenging order dated 22.8.2008 passed by the Rent Controller and judgement dated 26.4.10 passed by the appellate authority. Both the Courts below have directed eviction of the petitioner � tenant on the ground of personal need of the landlord. The need established by the landlord is that earlier the school was upto 8th standard, however, it was upgraded to 10+2 standard. The school needs accommodation in question to use it for the school purposes. The Rent controller while relying upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Mohinder Parsad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain 2006(2) PLR 667, has held that non-residential building can be got evicted on the ground of bonafide requirement. Learned Counsel for the petitioner - tenant argued that this is a small shop and it has not been established in what manner it would be used by the school.

Once need is found to be genuine and bonafide, then it is for the school to use the accommodation in question for the purpose of accommodating the students. No legal infirmity or jurisdictional error is pointed out. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below.

While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court has limited jurisdiction and it is not open for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence. Since no illegality or jurisdictional error is pointed out, hence the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to vacate the property in dispute. He states that the petitioner � tenant may be permitted to vacate the premises on or before 31.12.2010.

Petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in dispute till 31.12.2010, if the petitioner furnishes his usual undertaking before the Rent controller within two weeks from today. In the event of non-furnishing of undertaking, decree can be executed forthwith.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.