ORDER: C.R.P.No.2898 of 1998 is filed by landlord and the same arises from R.C.O.P.No.262 of 1986. C.R.P.No.2198 of 1998 is filed by tenant and the same arises from R.C.O.P.No.272 of 1988. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as "landlord" and "tenant’.

2. Both the eviction petitions were filed by same landlord against same tenant. R.C.O.P.No.262 of 1986 was filed by landlord claiming eviction on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and also for the reason that after demolition, building is required for the occupation of landlord’s son for his business requirement and to augment income.

3. R.C.O.P.No.272 of 1988 was filed by landlord on the allegation that the tenant has sublet the building and is also making use of the building for the purposes other than for which the building was let out.

4. In both these petitions, the case of the parties could be summarised thus:

It is the case of landlord that the scheduled building was let out to tenant on his agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.50. According to him, the building is very old and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Landlord has also submitted plan to Municipality for approval and approval has also been obtained Landlord got financial capacity to put up new construction and the construction is also necessary to augment his income. Landlord also wants to provide employment to his unemployed son to carry on business in the proposed construction and wanted to stand on his own legs. Landlord is not in possession of any other non-residential building.

5. It is also averred by landlord in R.C.O.P.No.272 of 1988 that the building was given to tenant only to run a guilt shop but he has received information that he is running synthetic diamond sale. Even after serious search made by landlord, he could not identify the person is whose name the building was sub-let and landlord is not in a position to make him as party to the petition. It is also averred that tenant has sub-let the building to a person who is doing synthetic diamond business for a sum of Rs.250. It is said that since the building is allowed to be used for the purposes other than to which it was let out, there is change of user and on this ground also tenant is liable to be evicted.

6. In the counter statement filed by tenant in both the eviction petitions he denied having sub-let the building and also alleged that there is no change of user. According to him, he wanted to do business in synthetic diamond also and he had applied for licence and the same could not be obtained. Building is still under his control and there is no sub-lease. It is also contended that there is no change of user. Regarding the claim for eviction for demolition and reconstruction, it is contended that landlord has not satisfied the statutory requirements and the claim is not bona fide. The claim that the building is required for the business of his son after demolition and reconstruction was also disputed by tenant.

7. Both these petitions were clubbed together and evidence was taken in R.C.O.P.No.262 of 1986 from which C.R.P.No.2898 of 1998 arises. On the side of landlord Exs.P-1 to P-14 were marked and on the side of tenant Exs.R-1 to R-7 were marked Commissioner’s report is marked as Ex.C-1. Enclosures in the Commissioner’s report were marked as Exs.C-2 and C-3. Oral evidence consist of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2.

8. After evaluating entire evidence, trial court held that landlord has not proved his claim for eviction on the ground that the building requires demolition and reconstruction nor it is bona fidely required by landlord’s son. It is also found that there is no change of user. But, at the same time, Rent Controller held that landlord has proved that the tenant has sub-let the building and the same is unauthorised. Eviction was ordered on that ground.

9. Landlord filed R.C.A.No.83 of 1994 and tenant filed R.C.A.No.81 of 1994 on the file of Rent Control Appel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document