KASHMIR CHAND Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGWAN Dass and his two brothers respondents own the premises in dispute consisting of a room, verandah and courtyard in Mohalla Inderpuri, Sirsa. Kashmir Chand petitioner is in occupation thereof as a tenant in October, 1978, the respondents filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from April 1, 1976, and personal requirement of Bhagwan Dass respondent. The arrears of rent was tendered, though not at the rate claimed by the respondents. The Rent Controller, Sirsa, vide order dated February 25, 1981, held that the arrears of rent tendered was short of house tax and Bhagwan Dass bonafide required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. The petitioner was held liable to be evicted on both the grounds. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority vide order dated September 10, 1982, dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner was not liable to pay house tax and Bhagwan Dass respondent bonafide required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. The appeal was consequently dismissed. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present revision assailing the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE plea raised by the petitioner in the eviction proceedings against him is that the respondents let out the vacant plot to him for tethering buffaloes in 1968 and he had constructed a room at his own cost in 1969. It is also his plea that the rent agreed to be paid for the vacant plot was Rs. 50/- per month and later on it was increased to Rs. 70/- per month. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the room and the verandah of the premises in dispute had not been constructed by the petitioner and that he had been let out the room as it stands by the respondents for residence. There is hardly any justification to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below on this point.

(3.) IT is highly improbable that the petitioner after taking the vacant plot would make substantial investment thereon for making a room (Baithak) and verandah. The petitioner did not take permission either from the respondents or local authority for the construction alleged to have been made by him. He is residing in the premises since the time it was let out to him. He is running Ahrat Shop. He may be keeping a buffaloe. The evidence led does not establish that he ever had a regular dairy business. The findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the premises had been constructed by the respondents and had been let out to the petitioner for residence and not for dairy business are affirmed.