Court rules landlord's presence not required for eviction if family resides in building. Clarifies eviction petition principles.

The Court dismissed the eviction application, ruling that a prior similar petition's dismissal did not render the current petition maintainable. It was held that the landlord could be considered as occupying a residential building of his own in the city, even if not physically residing there, as long as family members resided with his permission. The judgment clarified legal principles on eviction petitions, finality of prior decisions, and the interpretation of "occupying" in residential buildings.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the petition for eviction is maintainable after a prior petition on similar grounds was dismissedRs.
- Whether the landlord can be considered as not occupying a residential building of his own in the cityRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The judgment involves two applications for writs of certiorari against orders of the Court of Small Causes, which were appellate authorities in eviction cases. The Rent Controller dismissed one petition but ordered eviction in another. The tenants argued that the eviction petition was not maintainable due to a prior similar petition's dismissal. The Controller's decision was appealed, but before the hearing, the tenants raised an objection regarding the lack of a notice to quit. The appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. The key debate was whether the issues were finally decided in the prior proceeding. The tenants argued that the Controller's decision became final as the appellate authority did not overturn it. However, the landlord contended that once the appeal was filed, the Controller's decision was no longer final. The Court considered a previous decision but concluded on a different point to dispose of the applications.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around whether the landlord could be deemed as not occupying a residential building of his own in the city. The landlord owned multiple houses, with one vacant and another occupied by his second wife and her family. The landlord himself resided in a rented house with his first wife, occasionally staying at the house with his second wife. The Court analyzed the meaning of "occupying" in the relevant Act and various legal precedents. It was determined that the landlord could be considered as occupying a residential building if any family members resided with his permission and on his account, even if he did not physically reside there. The Court rejected the argument that physical residence at the time of the application was the sole test, highlighting the potential abuse if such a standard was applied. Ultimately, it was held that the landlord was occupying a residential house of his own in the city, leading to the dismissal of his eviction application.

This judgment clarifies the legal principles surrounding eviction petitions, finality of decisions in prior proceedings, and the interpretation of "occupying" in the context of residential buildings.

---