RADHA KISHAN MARWAHA Vs. GIRDHARI LAL BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having failed before two authorities, namely the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the tenant-petitioner has filed the present revision petition, with a view to avoid her eviction under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . The main ground on which the petitioner had been ordered to be evicted is that the respondent-landlord required the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation and on this point both the authorities below have found in favour of the landlord.

(2.) Mr. P. N. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the authorities below had not focussed their attention upon the three necessary ingredients which had to be fulfilled before the ejectment of the petitioner could have been ordered. He contends that the landlord had admittedly vacated certain house property within the area of Patti, where the house in dispute is situated. Indeed, the landlord admitted that he had sold a haveli which was being used as a cattle-shed, twelve years before the filing of the ejectment petition, but that is not a bar to the landlord to seek eviction of his residential premises. There is no cross-examination addressed to the landlord that the property sold by him was not a cattle-shed but was a residential property.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the respondent had been residing at Delhi since long and his desire to settle down at Patti was not bona fide one. Here again, the argument is fallacious. The landlord after retirement from service is living in a rented house at Delhi. He owns an orchard near the demised premises at Patti and is keen to settle down in his own house so that he may look after the orchard also. The mere fact that the orchard was for the time being looked after by some of his relations, does not demerit his claim in this behalf.