CHARAN DASS Vs. SHEELWANT PARKASH KAPIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has come up in the premises which are these. Sheelwant Parkash Kapil respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for the ejectment of Charan Dass petitioner from a house situated within the Municipal limits of Khanna on the ground that the house was required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. The landlord also pleaded that he had no other accommodation in his possession within the Municipal limits of Khanna, nor had he vacated any such accommodation. Another ground of ejectment was also put forward, but the same is not relevant as it was never pressed. The petition was resisted by the tenant and after considering the matter, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner within fifteen days of the passing of the order which was rendered on February 6, 1979. The appeal filed by the tenant also failed before the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, who affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller. The present Revision petition seeks to challenge these decisions of the two Authorities mentioned above.

(2.) The sale point which falls for consideration in the present revision petition is as to whether the landlord had proved his bonafide need for the occupation of the premises in dispute. In this behalf, it may be stated that the landlord appeared himself in the witness box and stated that he was for the time being living with his son at Chandigarh and for the past some years, his relations with his son had become somewhat strained. He was, therefore, desirous of occupying his own house at Khanna. The petitioner of course, rebutted this contention by putting up a negative plea.

(3.) Mr. Vijay Jhanji, learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to certain authorities of this Court wherein a distinction was brought out between the mere wish of the landlord and his actual need for the premises. Mr. Toor, learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the correctness of these decisions, but contended that the landlord had, in fact, proved his bonafide need for occupying the house. Obviously, the verdict rests upon the assessment of the oral evidence of the parties. so far as the legal position is concerned; there is no manner of doubt that the High Court may, under its revisory power, interfere with the findings of fact of the Rent Control Authorities, as the scope of Rent Act applicable to Punjab is quite wide. Normally, however, the High Court would not interfere with a concurrent finding of fact of the two Authorities unless such a finding was obviously based upon misreading or mis-appreciation of the oral evidence or the same was otherwise perverse. None of these circumstances exist in the present case. Adopting this general rule, I would dismiss the revision petition as being without merit. It is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs of the Revision Petition.