1. Application C. M. A. 3044/.1981 is restored.
2. On further hearing the learned counsel,. The appeal is also restored to its original number and the order passed on 30-8-1981 is set aside.
3. At the request of the counsel the case is taken up for Katcha Peshi, after its restoration.
4. The learned Rent Controller by order passed on 11-3-1981 dismissed the application for ejectment (R. C. No, 3516/76), after which the present appeal has been preferred.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.. The facts of the case as disclosed in the arguments and from perusal of the record, show that in the year 1973 an application for ejectment was filed by the present appellant against the respondent but the same was compromised,the respondent having agreed to pay Rs, 70 from 1.7-1973 instead of Rs, 45 per month which the landlord was earlier realising for the tenement in question.
' Subsequently on 31-3-1976 the appellant landlord again served a notice upon the respondent calling upon him to vacate the premises with effect from 30-6-1976 on the plea that he needed the house for his domestic use. As the respondent failed to vacate the premises the ejectment application (R. C. No, 3516/76) was filed on the ground that the premises in question have been sublet by the respondent and that the said premises are required bona fide by the appellant and his children.
6. The learned counsel submitted that the plea of subletting raised in the application was not pressed and the only ground on which ejectment was sought and is now pressed is that the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own use and that of his children.
We have already noted above that in the notice dated 31-3-1976 the appellant had called upon the respondent to vacate the premises on the ground that the premises were required by him for his domestic use. However, during the proceedings before the Rent Controller a new case was set up by the landlord by trying to make out a case that the premises were required for running business/show-room of Fixo Industries of which he was a partner. The learned Rent Controller found after discussing the evidence that the alleged Partnership Deed of Fixo Industries is dated 16- 5-1978 whereas the business is shown to have commenced from 1-7-1976. Taking the circumstances in consideration the learned Rent Controller concluded that the appellant had intentionally put the above clause in the partnership deed to make it appear as if it was effective from 1-7-1976 whereas the so-called Fixo Industries in fact was not even in existence before May, 1978. It is worth mentioning that the alleged partners shown in the said firm are the applicant, his son and wife and that the document of partnership written in 1978 was shown to be effect from 1-7- 1976, I e. B only 19 days before the filing of the case. No other document to prove the existence in 1976 of the partnership was produced.
' I find that plea of requirement for personal use is belied by the fact that in the notice dated 31-3- 1976 the appellant had called upon the respondent to vacate the premises on the ground that he required the premises for his domestic use. While in evidence he gave up that plea, and stated that he required the premises for showroom/running of business. In the nature of the case and contradictory pleas taken by the appellant/ landlord the learned Rent Controller was fully justified to take the view that the appellant failed to prove that the premises in question were required by him for his bona fide use and for his children.
7. For the reasons discussed above I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed summarily.