Order.- All these three Revision Petitions arise out of a common order passed in three different Rent Control applica-tions, both by the Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner in those eviction petitions is the same. He filed the eviction petitions in respect of three different shops occupied by the different respondents therein under sections 10(2)(7) and 14(1)(b) of the Act.

2. The trial Court found that the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction under section 14(1)(b) is bona fide but holding that there is no valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, dismisssed the eviction petitions. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the lardlord preferred three Rent Control Appeals. The lower Appellate Court confirmed the finding as regards the bona fide requirement of the landlord is concerned for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. On the ground of defective notice, the lower Appellate Court observed that the vague allegation of the petitioners herein to the effect that the landlord is not the absolute owner of the property will amount to denial of the landlord’s title and as such, no notice under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document