RAM PRATAP SHARMA Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby an order of eviction was passed way back in the year 1991, the petitioner-tenant has filed the present Civil Revision.

(2.) Mr. Anil Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Additional Rent Controller has passed the eviction order on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He has contended that the accommodation required for growing children of the eldest son of the petitioner was taken into consideration by Additional Rent Controller although the age of these two children, at the time of filing of the eviction petition in the year 1986, was six and two years. Mr. Gupta has further contended that a room which was vacated by Roshan Lal has not been taken into consideration by Additional Rent Controller and if that room would have been taken into consideration as accommodation available with the respondent then there was no bonafide requirement on the part of respondent as his requirement was satisfied. I have perused through the impugned order.

(3.) The two children of the eldest son of the respondent at the time of the filing of the eviction petition were of the age group of six years and two years. When the impugned order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller in the year 1991, their ages were eleven and seven years. It cannot be said that requirement of these two children could not have been taken into consideration by the Additional Rent Controller. As matter of fact, on account of the said order granted by this Court, for the last eight years, this matter has been pending and the ages of these two children are now 19 years and 15 years. I do not find any force in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner on this score.