SMT. PARKASH SOOD Vs. SURINDER SINGH BAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Shrimati Parkash Sood, landlady against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dismissing her application for ejectment. The landlady filed an application for ejectment of Surinder Singh Bawa, tenant, on the ground that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. She also took other grounds, but they are not relevant for the purpose of this revision petition. The tenant contested the application and controverted the allegations of the applicant. He further stated that the applicant had moved an application for ejectment to put pressure on him to increase the rent which had already been increased from Rs. 210/- to Rs. 260/- per mensem. He also pleaded that the petitioner, her husband and their children were residing at Delhi and that they had no intention to reside at Ludhiana.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner required the premises for her own use and occupation. Consequently, he ordered the ejectment of the tenant. He went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority who reversed the above said finding and came to the conclusion that the landlady did not require the premises bonafide for her own use and occupation. Consequently, it accepted the appeal and dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlady has come up in revision against that order to this Court.

(3.) The only question that arises for determination in this case is as to whether the landlady requires the premises for her own use and occupation. The Appellate Authority after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that she did not require the premises bonafide for her own use and occupation. I have gone through the judgment and evidence and find that the conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Authority are correct and there is no scope for interference with the same. It is in evidence that the landlady firstly increased the rent from Rs. 210/- to Rs. 230/- and thereafter from Rs. 230/- to Rs. 260/- per mensem. The explanation given by her for increase of the rent to the effect that some renovations were made, is not acceptable. There is also a letter on the record dated, August 31, 1975 Exhibit E. 1. written by Mr. Om Parkash Sood, husband of the petitioner wherein he asked the tenant to pay him the arrears plus something more. This letter was written a few days prior to the filing of the ejectment application. That further goes to show that the petitioner is interested in increasing the rent of the house. She along with her husband has been living in Delhi since 1970. Their children had also been styding there. It is now stated that her husband has been transferred from Delhi to Faridkote. Even if it may be assumed that he has been transferred from Delhi that will not furnish ground for getting the house vacated, which is situated as Ludhiana. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, I dismiss the same with no order as to costs.