Back
1982 Supreme(Ori) 46
High Court Of Orissa
R. N. Misra, C. J. And B. K. Behera, J.
CHINTA NARAYANAMMA - Appellant
Versus
KHOLLI SAHU - Respondent
Original Jurn. Case 1173 Of 1980
Decided On : 03/17/1982
B.L.N.SWAMY, N.R.AGRAWAL, N.V.RAMDAS, P.V.Ramdas, R.MOHANTY, Y.S.N.MURTY
The landlord must demonstrate a genuine need for the tenanted house to establish a bona fide requirement for eviction, and the landlord's testimony is crucial in proving such a requirement.
Headnote:
ORISSA HOUSE RENT CONTROL ACT, 1967 - SECTION 7 - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - WILFUL DEFAULT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought eviction of the opposite party No. 1, a tenant, on the grounds of wilful default in rent payment and bona fide requirement of the tenanted house. The House Rent Controller and the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application, finding no wilful default and no bona fide requirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the findings of the statutory authorities were reasonable and well-founded. There was no evidence of wilful default by the tenant, and the petitioner failed to establish her bona fide requirement of the tenanted house.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant was a wilful defaulter in rent payment? 2. Whether the petitioner had a bona fide requirement of the tenanted house?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967, which provides for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. It held that the onus is on the landlord to show a genuine need for the house and that the requirement should not be based on an oblique motive or false pretence. 2. The court also held that the petitioner's failure to examine herself as a witness to substantiate her claim of bona fide requirement was a significant factor in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the House Rent Controller and the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
BEHERA, J.
( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to the original and appellate orders (Annexures 1 and 2) passed by the House Rent Controller and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, rejecting the application of the petitioner under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (Act 4 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and dismissing her claim for eviction of the opposite party No. 1 on the grounds (a) that the opposite party No. 1 was a wilful defaulter in the payment of rent and (b) the house in occupation of the opposite party No. 1 was required for the bona fide requirement of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court for the eviction of the opposite party No. 1 after quashing Annexures 1 and 2.
( 2 ) THE petitioner had inducted the opposite party No. 1 as a tenant from 25-11963 on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-which later was enhanced to Rs. 45/- per month. The opposite party No. 1, it was alleged, was irregular in the payment of rent and since October, 1975, wilfully defaulted in the payment of rent. The other ground for the eviction of the opposite party No. 1 was that the petitioner intended to shift to the house in occupation of the opposite party No. 1 as she wanted to sell the present house under her occupation to discharge a loan amount of Rs. 35,000/- incurred by her, her grandson and others from the Orissa State Financial Corporation. The petitioner had also alleged that the opposite party No. 1 had taken the house for residential purpose on rent, but had used the same as his godown causing damages to the house. She had also claimed higher rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month as the house in question was in a commercial and business locality. All the grounds had been controverted by the opposite party No. 1 before the House Rent Controller (opposite party No. 2 ). Both the sides produced evidence before the opposite party No. 2 who, on a consideration of the materials placed before him, held that the petitioner had no bona fide requirement of the tenanted house and that the opposite party No. 1 was not a wilful defaulter. It was also held that the opposite party No. 1 had not been using the tenanted house as a godown nor had any damage been caused to that house. The rent was, however, increased to Rs. 100/ -. Both the sides unsuccessfully appealed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur (opposite party No. 3), the petitioner challenging the findings of the opposite party No. 2 against her and the opposite party No. 1 challening the enhancement of rent against him.
( 3 ) MR. Y. S. N. Murty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the findings arrived at by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 with regard to the wilful default of the opposite party No. 1 and the bona fide requirement of the tenanted house of the petitioner are unreasonable and perverse. Mr. B. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, has, however, submitted that the impugned orders are reasonable and well-founded and would not call for interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction.
( 4 ) CONCURRENT findings of fact of the statutory authorities giving cogent reasons therefor are not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence (See Babu v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1981) 4 SCC 246: (AIR 1982 SC 756) ). Both the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 have, for clear and good reasons, held as a fact that the opposite party No. 1 was not a wilful defaulter and accepted his case that the practice was that the petitioner used to collect rent from the opposite party No. 1 and as since October, 1975, no collection was made from him, he waited for some time and then remitted Rs. 180/- by postal money order on 27-2-1976 being the rent from 23-10-1975 to 28-2-1976 which was refused by the petitioner, evidenced by Ext. J. It would appear from Ext. K, the savings bank account with the C
