Harnam Singh vs Raksha Rani and Others

This is an appeal by the tenant, filed by special leave, against the findings of the courts below that the landlord required the premises in appeal bona fide for personal occupation.

At the commencement of the hearing Mr Mahajan, learned counsel for the tenant, sought to file an affidavit sworn yesterday by the son of the tenant, alleging that the landlord now had alternative accommodation at Faridabad. It appears from that what transpired in court that no copy of this affidavit had been served upon the advocate for the landlord so that, had the affidavit been allowed to be taken on record, the landlord would have had to be allowed time to put in his reply thereto. We do not think that this should be allowed. If the tenant''s intention in this regard were bona tide, the affidavit should have been served upon the advocate for the landlord in good time so that when the matter reached he had a reply to it ready and the matter could be proceeded with. We, therefore, decline to take the affidavit on record.

Mr. Mahajan submitted that the evidence discloses that the landlord had other premises. The finding of the courts below is that the landlord had not inducted new tenants into the other premises after the commencement of the statute in question; also, that some other houses that belonged to the landlord were not fit for human habitation. It could hardly be said that the landlord does not bona fide require the premises for personal occupation because he owns houses not fit for human habitation.

We see no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.

By the consent of parties, the tenant shall have time until 31/5/1994 to vacate the premises upon his filing the usual undertaking in court within four weeks from today.