Smt. Durga Ahirwar v. Harshit Kumar & another

petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is intending to get the house reconstructed after demolition of the demise premises for the purposes of using the same for his own residence.

3. The application of respondent No.1 was opposed by the petitioner on various grounds contending that the respondent No.1 was having sufficient accommodation in his possession where he is residing along with his other family members at Mission Compound, E.L.C., Sagar and he has no bonafide requirement of the house in dispute for the purposes of his own residence. It is contended in the reply that application is not maintainable and is, thus, liable to be dismissed.

4. The Rent Controlling Authority recorded the evidence of the parties, heard them and thereafter passed an order of eviction against petitioner, therefore, this revision is required to be filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Rent Controlling Authority gravely erred in not considering the evidence available on record. It is contended that in the statement the petitioner has categorically proved the fact that respondent No.1 was having sufficient accommodation in his possession and, therefore, he had no bonafide need of the house demised to the petitioner for the purposes of residence. The need indicated in the application of the respondent No.1 was imaginary and such facts were proved on making suggestion in the cross-examination. The fact remains that even after 1997, there was no need to get the house 3 vacated from the petitioner and this itself is enough to demonstrate that the need was not bonafide or genuine as explained by the respondent No.1 in his application and as such the application was to be dismissed. However, these particular aspects have not been considered by the Rent Controlling Authority and the order of eviction has been passed.

6. Per contra it is contended by learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that detailed affidavit was filed by the petitioner. She was cross-examined exhaustively. The fact was proved that even when the petitioner was given certain reliefs by the State Government with respect to repairing in the house even after getting the funds from the State Government, this fact was not brought to the notice of the respondent. This was categorically confronted to the petitioner that she was pretending herself to be the owner of the house and that is why she has obtained the relief from the State Government. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 that the need of the respondent No.1 was genuine as was categorically proved from the statement made before the Rent Controlling Authority that the respondent No.1 was having no other house of his own at Sagar for the purposes of residence. It is categorically contended by the respondent No.1 that the house at Mission Compound is not owned by him. If this was the stand taken by the petitioner in her defence that the house at Mission Compound was the property of the respondent No.1, she was required to prove the same. There is nothing in the evidence available to indicate that any such house was owned by the respondent No.1. If at a later stage the respondent was willing to get his house reconstructed for the purposes of his own residence, it would be his bonafide need as defined in Section 23-A of the Act and, therefore, if the order is passed 4 by the Rent Controlling Authority granting such an order of eviction against the petitioner, it is contended by learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that no wrong is committed. Therefore, there is no case made out to interfere in the order of the Rent Controlling Authority and revision deserves to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

8. Undisputedly it was the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 was having another house of his own at Sagar. If this was her plea, the burden was on the petitioner to prove that the respondent was having another house of his own at Sagar. Such a contention of the petitioner has not been found proved by the Rent Controlling Authority. On the other hand, if the evidence is scrutinized, it would be clear that the respondent was asking the petitioner to vacate the premises. On such occasion it was said that the respondent No.1 was in fact intending to reconstruct the house for the purposes of his own residence. If that was the situation, how could it be said that the claim made by the respondent No.1 was not proved before the Rent Controlling Authority and, therefore, no order of eviction could be passed against the petitioner. The order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is just and proper and is based on right appreciation of evidence available on record. In view of the aforesaid, there is no force in this revision and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

9. A prayer is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was occupying the house for a long period, she may be granted sufficient time to vacate the premises. 5

10. Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that the petitioner will deliver the vacant possession of the house to the respondent No.1 on or before 30th June, 2012. The petitioner will also pay the rent of the said house for the period she remained in the occupation of the said house up to the time fixed by this Court. In case the possession of the house is not delivered by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 on or before 30th June, 2012, immediate action for execution of the order of Rent Controlling Authority would be taken.

11. The revision fails and is dismissed with the aforesaid. There shall be nor order as to cost. Skc (K.K. Trivedi) Judge