The landlord's right to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent and bonafide necessity, as well as the burden of proof on ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant, were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - While assailing the concurrent findings of fact arrived by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority, the tenant has filed the present revision petition. At the outset, it must be noticed that the petitioner has made all the possible attempts to delay the decision of the case. Initially, the eviction petition was filed by the respondent, which is a educational society, claiming that it requires the premises for construction of Bhagwan Mahavir Jain University on 15.06.2001. The eviction was also sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and changes made in the tenanted premises without permission and written consent of the landlord. The petitioner did not participate resulting in an ex parte judgment dated 28.01.2006. Thereafter, on an application filed by the petitioner, the ex parte judgment was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to contest. Again, the Rent Controller ordered his eviction on 26.11.2014, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority by judgment dated 21.08.2018. The eviction has been ordered by both the Authorities on non-payment of rent as well as the bonafide necessity of the respondent.

2. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the judgments passed by the Courts below as well as the record, which was requisitioned.

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has contended as under:-

i. The original rent receipts have not been produced and therefore, they were wrongly admitted in evidence;

ii. The Society has failed to prove its ownership as sale deed was not produced;

iii. No evidence has been produced to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. No date of starting of the tenancy has been disclosed.

iv. Proceedings for acquisition of the land cannot be used to give findings with respect to the ownership;

v. Both the Authorities have failed to discuss the ground of bonafide necessity in proper perspective.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent has contended that Sh. V.K. Jain, while appearing as PW-1, produced the original rent receipts on 05.03.2014. It is specifically recorded by the Court that original of documents Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10, have been brought and the Court after seeing and examining the same, returned the documents, while permitting the respondent to produce its photocopies on the file of the case. Though, the land at one point of time was acquired, however, subsequently it was released from acquisition as is evident from the statement of the Patwari of the area Jina and document Ex.P-7. He further submits that when the petitioner appeared in evidence, he denied his signatures on the receipt only because this was a photocopy. He further submits that Ex.P-8, is yet another receipt signed by the brother of the petitioner who is a serving as a Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana. He has not been examined, although, he also inherited tenancy from his father.

5. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length, the Court proceeds to analyze the arguments.

6. The first argument addressed by the learned counsel representing the petitioner is factually incorrect. As is evident from the statement of Sh. V.K. Jain, who appeared in evidence on behalf of the Society on 05.03.2014, that he brought the original documents and the Court after examining the same, returned the same. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the learned counsel representing the petitioner to contend that the original of the aforesaid documents were never produced.

7. In order to prove the relationship of the landlord and tenant, the respondent-Society has produced three receipts Ex.8, Ex.P-9 and Ex.P10. Originally, late Sh. Maheshwar Parshad was inducted as tenant. After his death, his widow, the petitioner and his brother Sh. Ramesh Dimri inherited the tenancy. Ex.P-8, is signed by Sh. Ramesh Dimri. He is brother of the petiti