MUKANDI LAL SAT NARAIN Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge herein is to the finding recorded both by learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority upholding the plea of the respondents-landlords for personal bonafide need which they had filed to obtain ejectment of the petitioner-tenant herein. The landlord did not, however, succeed in both the Courts to get a finding in his favour about the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The disfavourable finding on that point notwithstanding, the landlord succeeded in obtaining the order for ejectment of the petitioner herein from the premises in dispute on the plea of personal bonafide necessity.

(2.) The pure and simple plea raised by the respondents landlord, in the context of bonafide requirement, was that he had retired from service about a year before filing of the petition. Thereafter, he started residing with one of his son at Hisar. It is thereafter only that he made up his mind to start business in the disputed premises which (premises) are located in an area described as the hub of the commercial activity in the town of Jind.

(3.) Since the very points urged before Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority were reiterated in revision, I shall proceed to deal with the same hereunder.