Paryag Dass Rajgarhia vs The Financial Commissioner Revenue. Haryana and others

D.S. Tewatia, J.—There are two appeals viz. L.P.A. No. 1024 and 1025 of 1981 and the same involve common question of law and facts and therefore, are disposed of by a common judgment.

The Appellant in this appeal has impugned the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 3rd September, 1981, whereby, he quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner passed by him in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 15 Sub-section (6) of the Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

The Appellant-landlord had sought eviction of the Respondent tenants, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Controller in regard to the said plea observed that the landlord who was the Director of four factories and partner of one in Faridabad and was living in Maharani Bagh Delhi did not bonafide need the two small flats on lease with the tenants. The Rent Controller observed that the landlord had admittedly not even seen the flats in question how could he make up his mind that those flats were suitable for his living. He also observed that the flats were located in an area in which a factory owner of his kind would not find easy to live in The appellate authority too concurred in the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller.

The learned Financial Commissioner, however held that was not sufficient to hold that the landlord did not require the said two flats for his bonafide personal requirement. The Financial Commissioner further observed that basically the wish of the landlord that he requires demised premises for his personal requirement have to be taken at its face value unless it is shown to be otherwise.

The learned Single Judge did not agree with that approach of the Financial Commissioner. In appeal it has been canvassed on behalf of the Appellant that the revisional powers u/s 15 Sub-section (6) of the Act are quite wide and the revisional authority could go into the question of fact in order to assess propriety of the order of the Courts below. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition of law but that is so if it is found that the approach of the Courts below in appreciating the evidence was not correct, consequently necessitating a fresh appraisal of the facts to form one''s own conclusion in regard to the weight and value of the evidence.

In the present case there could be no two opinions about the fact that the landlord did not bonafide require the two flats. The landlord as per his own evidence was a Director of four firms and partner of one in Faridabad. He had purchased the two flats in question and had given them on rent to the Respondent-tenants who had given them for the residence of their employees. Landlord admitted in evidence that he had not seen the flats at all. It is unthinkable that a person without having seen the premises and the area where they are located would make up his mind to shift therein from a posh locality in which one happens to be living as is the case here. It would be more so in the case of rich landlord like the Appellant and who is comfortably living in a posh colony not far from Faridabad on Faridabad Delhi road.

In our opinion the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order of the revisional authority. Hence we dismiss these two appeals with no order as to costs.