BABU RAM Vs. MAKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner sought eviction of the tenant-respondent, inter alia, on the ground that he required the premises for his bonafide personal use and occupation. The case set up by the petitioner was that he had retired from Government service; that he had no house other than the house in dispute in Nakiodar town; that temporarily he had hired a house in which he was living that his son was employed in the Posts and Telegraphs Department who would be shortly retired and he too soon would be coming to settle in Nabodar town; and that he too neither owned nor possessed any house in Nabodar town.

(2.) The tenant contested the claim of the landlord and took up the stand that the landlord, in fact did not need the house for his bone fide personal use and occupation; that he had retired from Government service almost 20 years back; and that he wanted to sell the house and, therefore wanted the house to be vacated. Certain documents, including the letters from the landlord, were placed on the record.

(3.) The landlord-petitioner himself did not come in the witness-box. These documents could be put to him if he had appeared as a witness. The courts below formed the impression that, perhaps, he deliberately provided coming into the witness box. Relying on the documents produced by the tenant, which gave clear inkling that the landlord-petitioner was out to effect sale thereof and had given the first choice to the tenant himself to purchase the house if he so desired and in one of the documents, a desire had been expressed to enhance the rent and also availed threat was conveyed in one of the document above said that he would be ejected from the house. In view of these facts, both the Courts below concurrently held that the landlord petitioner had failed to establish that the needed the house for his bonafide personal use and occupation. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the findings of the Courts below in this regard.