Case: Vaneet Jain Vs. Jagjit Singh

Appellant herein is the landlord of the premises whereas the respondent is the tenant. The appellant filed application before the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent)Eviction Act, 1973 (in short `the Act) for eviction ofon the ground of his bona fide need for the premises. The need set up by the appellant in the said application was that he isand his elder brother is carrying on business at Balsaur in Orissa and the said business is in the name of his elder brother wherein the appellant has no interest. It was also stated that he was suffering from asthma and as per medical advice coastal area is not fit for his habitation. It was further asserted that the appellant intended to carry on business of Karyana in the premises in dispute and for that purpose he deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000in the fixed deposit. The need set up by the landlord was denied by the tenant. However, the Rent Controller, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and consequently, the application filed by the landlord was allowed. Aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Act. The appellate authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller. The tenant thereafter preferred a revision under(6) of Section 15 of the Act. The High Court recorded at a finding that the need of the appellant is not bona fide. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the order of the Court below was set aside. It is against the said judgment the landlord is in appeal before us.

Reasoning:
We find merit in the submission. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the need of the landlord was bona fide. The said finding was affirmed by the appellatethe fact that the appellant was enrolled in the Employment Exchange at Orissa, the Rent Controller and the appellate authority concluded that the appellant is unemployed and is seeking his employment by running a business in the premises in dispute. Such a conclusion by the Court below cannot be said as wholly unreasonable. It is not the case of the respondent that as a result of appellant being on the roll of employment exchange he has got appointment in any service. The High Court did not find that such a conclusion arrived at by the Courts below was wholly unreasonable. We are, therefore, of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court after reassessment of evidence was not permissible under law. Consequently, the judgment under appeal deserves to be set aside.