9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jab States Union Urban Rent Restriction ordinance, 2006 BK (No. VIII of 2006 BK). The grounds urged by the landlord were (a) non-payment of rent by the tenants, (b) non payment of house tax by the tenants and (c) that the shops were in a state of great disrepair and were dilapidated, and the landlord wished to rebuild them after dismantling the structures. The landlord averred that he had obtained sanction of the Municipal Committee to a proposed plan of construction, and accumulated some building material before making the application. The tenants resisted the application. The Rent Controller framed issues relating to the three grounds; but the first two have ceased to be material now. On the issue relating to the third ground, the Rent C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his wife and five children. The Rent Controller, therefore, held that he had no means to rebuild the premises. The Rent Controller did not feel impressed by the alleged purchase of 40 bags of cement, because a greater part of the cement was used up already in building two or three latrines, and the quantity left was wholly insufficient for the proposed building. He, therefore, decided the issue against the landlord. On appeal, these findings were confirmed by the appellate authority, who held that the shops and chobaras were in good condition, and that the landlord was not, in good faith, wanting to replace the building, when he had no means to built it. Against the order of the appellate authority, an application for revision purporting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the question of ejectment is whether the landlord genuinely wants to rebuild the premises, and further, that the actual condition of the premises is "a wholly irrelevant factor". In dealing with the merits of the case, the learned Judge referred to the offer of the landlord to put back the tenants in possession, if the premises were not demolished within a month of his obtaining possession thereof, and concluded, without discussing the evidence, as follows: "Upon the evidence on record it seems to me established beyond all doubt that the landlord genuinely and bona fide requires these premises for rebuilding." He, therefore, set aside the concurrent orders of the two Tribunals, and ordered the eviction of the tenants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. Section 13 of the ordinance, omitting portions which are irrelevant here, reads as follows: "13. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this ordinance or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section. X X X (3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. X X X (iii)in the case of any building, if he requires it for the re-erection of that building or for its replacement by another bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion, obviously the Controller must be satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord, and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on. It is not enough that the landlord comes forward, and says that he entertains a particular intention, however strongly, said to be entertained by him. The clause speaks not of the bona fides of the landlord, but says, on the other hand, that the claim of the landlord that he requires the building for reconstruction and re-erection must be bona fide, that is to say. honest in the circumstances. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous conclusion. It is hardly necessary to go into the question of the extent of the powers of the High Court under s. 15(5) of the Rent Restriction Act. They have been adverted to in the ruling of this Court, above mentioned. They do not, however, include the power to reverse concurrent findings, without showing how those findings are erroneous. In the present case, the learned Judge has given his conclusion without adverting to single piece of evidence, from which his conclusion was drawn. In these circumstances it cannot be said that he had examined the propriety of the order sought to be revised, even under the provisions of the law he was administering. Learned counsel relying upon the case to which we have already referred, said that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
