AMAR IQBAL SINGH AND ORS Vs. BAWA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed a plea for ejectment of tenant Amrik Singh from the tenanted premises on various counts including the non-payment of rent and personal necessity. There also was an averment that the tenant aforementioned has ceased to occupy the premises for the last more than four years. The petition was allowed. It was held that the ground pertaining to the nonpayment of rent ceased to be available as due rent came to be tendered. Qua personal necessity, it was held that the tenanted premises are required by the legal representatives of tenant for their own use and occupation. It was further held that the respondent-landlord had not been able to prove that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. The locus standi of the legal representatives to continue with the petition was upheld.

(2.) In appeal, however, learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding and non suited legal representatives by holding that they had not been to prove that they required the premises for their own use and occupation. In that context, the learned Appellate Authority observed that the five legal representatives of the deceased were proved to be working elsewhere and there was nothing in the petition to indicate who out of the legal representatives required the dispute premises for own use and occupation.

(3.) The legal representatives are in revision against that finding.