MADAN LAL Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, who had dismissed the appeal of Madan Lal, tenant, and confirmed his eviction be the learned Rent Controller.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that Sham Lal, landlord, filed an application under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) against his tenant Madan Lal for ejectment from his house in dispute mainly on the ground that he required the demised premises for his personal occupation. The landowner had taken other plead but we are not concerned with that as they were not accepted by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller believed the evidence led by the landlord and ordered, the ejectment of the tenant. Dissatisfied with this order the tenant filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, who confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and held that the landlord needed the premises in dispute for his personal occupation.

(3.) Mr. H.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that Sham Lal, landlord, had sold one house which he had purchased for a sum of Rs. 800/-. Be also argued that the application filed by Sham Lal was not bonafide. Be was already occupying a house In Bhim Nagar, Gurgaon, and that house was sufficient for Sham Lal and his family. Mr. N.C. Jain, the learned counsel for Sham Lal, has controverted The arguments of Mr. Sarin.