RAM DASS Vs. ISHWAR CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by Special Leave, by the tenant arises out of the proceedings for eviction instituted against him under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 and is preferred against the judgment, dated, 29-5-1984 in Civil Revn. No. 1934 of 1982* of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reversing the judgment, dated, 30-4-1982 made by the Appellate Authority, Kapurthala, in Rent Appeal No. 130 and restoring that of the Rent Controller, dated, 17-12-1978 in rent case No. 47 of 1977, granting possession to the Respondent-landlords.

(2.) Appellant was a tenant of the premises concerned in the proceedings on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 having been inducted into possession on 9-12-1965 by the then owner Smt. Manohar Kaur. The premises in the occupation of the appellant consist of a portion of the groundfloor of the building. On 15-2-1976, the said Manohar Kaur sold the entire property in favour of respondents. The respondents are four brothers. Prior to the purchase, they were occupying, as tenants, other portions of the same building both in the first floor and the second floor. They were in occupation of three rooms in the first floor and one in the second. On 27-9-1977, respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of their own bona fide requirement of the premises. They alleged that the portion in their occupation was insufficient for their needs and that they required additional accommodation. They said that they were in all 10 brothers who, along with their families, were living together with their father.

(3.) Appellant contested the claim, urging that respondent 1, one of the brothers,. was in occupation of other rented premises in the same town at a place called Mohalla Malkana; that the respondents' father was himself in occupation of a separate rented premises; that the accommodation already available to the respondents was more than sufficient for their requirements and that, accordingly, their projected need was fictitious and mala fide. Appellant also said that the proceedings were brought in collusion with the previous owner.