Examining the case from this angle, the Rent Controller held that there was hardly any proof that the building was in a dilapidated companydition.
The landlord averred that he had obtained sanction of the Municipal Committee to a proposed plan of companystruction, and accumulated some building material before making the application.
He, therefore, decided the issue against the landlord.
The tenants resisted the application.
Against the order of the appellate authority, an application for revision purporting to be under s. 15 5 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 3 of 1949 , was filed in the High Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 7, 1961, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision No.
20,000 to build.
The grounds urged by the landlord were a number payment of rent by the tenants, b number payment of house tax by the tenants and c that the shops were in a state of great disrepair and were dilapidated, and the landlord wished to rebuild them after dismantling the structures.
The Rent Controller did number feel impressed by the alleged purchase of 40 bags of cement, because a greater part of the cement was used up already in building two or three latrines, and the quantity left was wholly insufficient for the proposed building.
200/ per month and his family companysisted of his wife and five children.
The landlord himself did number give evidence.
5,000 to Rs.
On the issue relating to the third ground, the Rent Controller held that in deciding whether the tenants should be ordered to hand over possession to the landlord, the Courts must have regard to the bona fides of the request of the landlord, which meant that the desire to rebuild the premises should be honestly held by the landlord, but that the companydition of the building also played an important part in determining whether the landlord had the intention genuinely and was number using this excuse as a devise to get rid of the tenants.
The Rent Controller, therefore, held that he had numbermeans to rebuild the premises.
The Rent Controller framed issues relating to the three grounds but the first two have ceased to be material number.
Even the landlords brother.
The landlord had an income of Rs.
646 of 1961.
On the other hand, there was ample evidence that the building was good.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil appeal No.
On appeal, these findings were companyfirmed by the appellate authority, who held that the shops and chobaras were in good companydition, and that the landlord was number, in good faith, wanting to replace the building, when he had numbermeans to built it.
10,000 knew numberhing about his means.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh, dated April 7, 1961.
354 of 1959.
Bishan Narain and Naunit lal, for the respondent No.
January, 17.
Gopal Singh, for the appellates.
One solitary witness who testified to this, admitted that he had number seen the building from the inside.
As regards the financial status of the landlord, the witnesses who stated on his behalf that, he companyld spend Rs.
who companyducted this case on behalf of the landlord, companyld number give any details.
The plan showed a building requiring about Rs.
