K.N. Seth, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition arising out of an application of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) THE case set up by the landlord was that he purchased the house in dispute in 1968 for residential purposes. His family consisting of himself, his wife, four sons and one daughter lived with him and the accommodation was insufficient for their need. The relation between the ladies of the house were also not cordial and it had become impossible for the landlord to live in that house. It was further pleaded that the tenants were rich persons and had constructed their own houses, where they were living separately. It was asserted that the need of the applicant landlord was genuine and that the tenants would not be put to any inconvenience if they were evicted from the house in dispute. The tenants denied that the need of the landlord for the house in dispute was genuine. It was asserted that the landlord was living comfortably with his father in a big house and that he had another residential accommodation in which he could comfortably live. It was alleged that the Petitioner No. 2 had only constructed shops and no residential accommodation has been constructed by him.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord for the accommodation in dispute was bonafide and that the tenants were comfortably living in their own houses. The Prescribed Authority further found that the Petitioner No. 2 had recently constructed his residential accommodation and four shops and he was living with his family in the recently constructed building. The learned District Judge affirmed that finding of the Prescribed Authority that the Petitioner No. 2 had constructed a house of his own and he was residing in that house. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Explanation 1 to Section 21 of the Act was attracted and the objection of the tenant was not competent and further that the landlord was not required to prove the genuineness or bonafide of his need, instead in such a case such needs shall be deemed sufficient under the Explanation. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the Explanation lays down rule of evidence which raises presumption with regard to the need of the landlord and that in an application under Section 21 of the Act when the explanation is attracted the bonafide need of the landlord is to be presumed and the landlord is not required to prove such need. On the presumption raised the learned Judge held that the need of the landlord was bonafide.;