Case: Ram Janki Mandir Vs. Nuruddin Bharmal

Kurian Joseph, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant/landlord filed a petition for eviction of the respondent/tenant on three grounds, i.e. (i) arrears of rent, (ii) nuisance; and (iii) need for reconstruction. The Trial Court allowed the eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and need for reconstruction. The same was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The respondent/tenant moved the High Court. On the ground of need for reconstruction, the High Court took the view that the Trial Court should have ascertained whether the respondent/tenant was willing to reoccupy the premises after reconstruction and having not done that, the matter was remitted to the Trial Court. 3. No doubt, there is a statutory requirement of ascertainment of willingness of the tenant as to whether he would be prepared to reoccupy the premises after reconstruction. But on the facts of the case, there is a concurrent finding of arrears of rent and that aspect is not seriously disputed also. Therefore, in any case, the eviction on the ground of arrears of rent should have been sustained. Once that is sustained, there is no question of ascertainment of the willingness of the tenant after reconstruction.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. No doubt, there is a statutory requirement of ascertainment of willingness of the tenant as to whether he would be prepared to reoccupy the premises after reconstruction. But on the facts of the case, there is a concurrent finding of arrears of rent and that aspect is not seriously disputed also. Therefore, in any case, the eviction on the ground of arrears of rent should have been sustained. Once that is sustained, there is no question of ascertainment of the willingness of the tenant after reconstruction.