Case: Indrasen Jain Vs. Rameshwardas

make all retired teachers of private schools Government servants. Therefore, in our view the respondent has failed to establish that he is a retired Government servant falling within the definition of landlord contained in Section 23J of the Act.8. The High Court failed to notice the statement of the respondent referred to above. Further the High Court proceeded on the assumption that the tenant had not contested the point and that no such plea was taken by him in his written statement. Both the assumptions were incorrect. The approach of the High Court appears to be totally contrary to record. The Rent Control Authority held that the respondent does not fall within the definition of landlord contained in section 23J of the Act. The Authority noted the admission of the respondent-landlord that teachers working in non-governmental institutions were also getting pension. It was on this account that the Authority felt that Ex.P1. the pension-slip was not sufficient to prove that the respondent was a Government servant. The teachers working in non-governmental educational institutions are not Government servants. The Authority further noted that the best proof of the fact that he is a retired Government servant would have been his appointment order or the deputation order. The judgment of the High Court erroneously records that the tenant had not seriously contested that the landlord was a retired Government servant. The High Court judgment is based on a wrong hypothesis that no such plea was taken in the written statement by the tenant. At two places i.e. paras 16 and 25 of the written statement, the tenant has denied that the landlord was a retired Government servant. This renders the finding of the High Court in this behalf as perverse.9. According to the High Court asking for the appointment order or the deputation order or the retirement order by the Rent Control Authority was arbitrary and extravagant". The High Court called the approach of the Authority in this behalf perverse. In our view, record shows that there is perversity in the approach of the High Court. The High Court observations are wholly uncalled for. The Rent Control Authority rightly observed about the need for production of appointment order or deputation order to prove the point. The High Courts finding is contrary to the record as well as contrary to law and as such cannot be sustained. We hold that the respondent landlord has failed to establish that he is a retired Government servant. Consequently, he does not fall within the meaning of landlord given in Section 23J of the Act. Therefore, he could not maintain a petition under Section 23A(b) of the Act. The eviction petition filed by respondent is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.10. Even on the question of bonafide requirement of the suit premises, the respondent in our view has no case. In this connection, first aspect worth noting is that the respondent retired from service on 30th November, 1994. He purchased the suit property on 7th December, 1999. More than one year after the alleged purchase of the suit property, he issued a notice of eviction on 1st February, 2001 and ultimately filed an eviction petition on the ground of personal requirement for doing business in the shop on 24th May, 2001. If at all the respondent for purposes of keeping himself occupied or by way of supplementing his income after his retirement, needed to do a business, he would have felt such a need soon after his retirement in the year 1994. The suit property was purchased on 7th December, 1999, i.e. about five years after retirement. Even after 1999, if the respondent thought of starting some business of his own and purchased a shop for that purpose, he would have purchased a vacant shop rather than going in for a tenanted premises. This shows that even in 1999 he had no intention or desire to start a business. Then even after purchase of the property he waited for more than a year and issued a notice in February, 2001 and instituted eviction petition in the end of May, 2001, that is nearly 1Â½ years after the purchase of the property. This entire sequence of events does not show any bonafides on the part of the respondent in setting up a case of bonafide requirement of suit premises. There is nothing to show how suddenly a need for doing business arose for the respondent in the year 2001. The Rent Control Authority in view of these facts doubted the bonafides of the respondent-landlord regarding requirement of the suit property for doing the business therein. The entire discussion in the judgment of the Authority on the question of bonafide need seems to suggest that the Authority was not satisfied with the case of landlord regarding bonafide need. However, in the concluding line on this issue the Authority observed that the applicant bonafide needs the suit shop for starting the business of books and stationery.". This conclusion of the Authority does not fit in with the discussion or reasoning on the point contained in the judgment of the Authority. The Authority noted several reasons which showed that there was no bonafide requirement of respondent. The High Court simply endorsed the conclusion of the Authority on the point without going into the question on its own. In our view, the respondent has not been able to make out a case for bonafide need of the suit premises. His claim for the suit premises is malafide.11. We have expressed our view on the issue of bonafide requirement since the learned counsel for the parties had spent considerable time over it. In view of our decision on the first issue about the respondent not being a retired Government servant and therefore not entitled to file a petition for eviction under Chapter IIIA of the Act, the eviction petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. There is no need to discuss the other issues.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]4. The eviction petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. It was also denied that the respondent was owner of the suit premises. According to the appellant, the transaction of sale was a sham and fictitious transaction. There was no proof of payment of sale consideration. The person from whom the property was allegedly purchased by respondent was his relation and the purpose of the transaction was to save the property from the creditors of the previous owner. The tenant also denied the alleged bonafide need of the respondent with respect to the suit premises. It was denied that the respondent was a retired Government servant. Further a plea was raised that the tenanted premises comprised a shop of the size of 20.8 feet X 10.5 feet and a smallof the size of 6 feet X 8 feet. The sale deed relied upon by the respondent to establish ownership of the suit property showed that the respondent had purchased only the shop of the size 20.8 feet X 10.5 feet and not theTherefore, the respondent could not seek eviction of the tenant from a part of the demised premises. This amounted to splitting up the tenanted premises which was not permissible under therespondent failed to produce either of them. The pension slip Ex. P1 is not sufficient to hold that respondent is a retired Government servant, particularly in view of respondents admission in his cross examination that teachers of private government aided schools receive pension after retirement. Mere receipt of pension does not make all retired teachers of private schools Government servants. Therefore, in our view the respondent has failed to establish that he is a retired Government servant falling within the definition of landlord contained in Section 23J of the Act.8. The High Court failed to notice the statement of the respondent referred to above. Further the High Court proceeded on the assumption that the tenant had not contested the point and that no such plea was taken by him in his written statement. Both the assumptions were incorrect. The approach of the High Court appears to be totally contrary to record. The Rent Control Authority held that the respondent does not fall within the definition of landlord contained in section 23J of the Act. The Authority noted the admission of thethat teachers working ininstitutions were also getting pension. It was on this account that the Authority felt that Ex.P1. thewas not sufficient to prove that the respondent was a Government servant. The teachers working ineducational institutions are not Government servants. The Authority further noted that the best proof of the fact that he is a retired Government servant would have been his appointment order or the deputation order. The judgment of the High Court erroneously records that the tenant had not seriously contested that the landlord was a retired Government servant. The High Court judgment is based on a wrong hypothesis that no such plea was taken in the written statement by the tenant. At two places i.e. paras 16 and 25 of the written statement, the tenant has denied that the landlord was a retired Government servant. This renders the finding of the High Court in this behalf as perverse.9. According to the High Court asking for the appointment order or the deputation order or the retirement order by the Rent Control Authority was arbitrary and extravagant". The High Court called the approach of the Authority in this behalf perverse. In our view, record shows that there is perversity in the approach of the High Court. The High Court observations are wholly uncalled for. The Rent Control Authority rightly observed about the need for production of appointment order or deputation order to prove the point. The High Courts finding is contrary to the record as well as contrary to law and as such cannot be sustained. We hold that the respondent landlord has failed to establish that he is a retired Government servant. Consequently, he does not fall within the meaning of landlord given in Section 23J of the Act. Therefore, he could not maintain a petition under Section 23A(b) of the Act. The eviction petition filed by respondent is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.10. Even on the question of bonafide requirement of the suit premises, the respondent in our view has no case. In this connection, first aspect worth noting is that the respondent retired from service on 30th November, 1994. He purchased the suit property on 7th December, 1999. More than one year after the alleged purchase of the suit property, he issued a notice of eviction on 1st February, 2001 and ultimately filed an eviction petition on the ground of personal requirement for doing business in the shop on 24th May, 2001. If at all the respondent for purposes of keeping himself occupied or by way of supplementing his income after his retirement, needed to do a business, he would have felt such a need soon after his retirement in the year 1994. The suit property was purchased on 7th December, 1999, i.e. about five years after retirement. Even after 1999, if the respondent thought of starting some business of his own and purchased a shop for that purpose, he would have purchased a vacant shop rather than going in for a tenanted premises. This shows that even in 1999 he had no intention or desire to start a business. Then even after purchase of the property he waited for more than a year and issued a notice in February, 2001 and instituted eviction petition in the end of May, 2001, that is nearly 1Â½ years after the purchase of the property. This entire sequence of events does not show any bonafides on the part of the respondent in setting up a case of bonafide requirement of suit premises. There is nothing to show how suddenly a need for doing business arose for the respondent in the year 2001. The Rent Control Authority in view of these facts doubted the bonafides of theregarding requirement of the suit property for doing the business therein. The entire discussion in the judgment of the Authority on the question of bonafide need seems to suggest that the Authority was not satisfied with the case of landlord regarding bonafide need. However, in the concluding line on this issue the Authority observed that the applicant bonafide needs the suit shop for starting the business of books and stationery.". This conclusion of the Authority does not fit in with the discussion or reasoning on the point contained in the judgment of the Authority. The Authority noted several reasons which showed that there was no bonafide requirement of respondent. The High Court simply endorsed the conclusion of the Authority on the point without going into the question on its own. In our view, the respondent has not been able to make out a case for bonafide need of the suit premises. His claim for the suit premises is malafide.11. We have expressed our view on the issue of bonafide requirement since the learned counsel for the parties had spent considerable time over it. In view of our decision on the first issue about the respondent not being a retired Government servant and therefore not entitled to file a petition for eviction under Chapter IIIA of the Act, the eviction petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. There is no need to discuss the other issues.