SAT PARKASH Vs. KALYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 23rd October, 1979, the petitioner-landlord was allowed to amend his ejectment application to plead the ingredients of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, and after the amended petition and the reply thereto was filed, the case was sent back to the Rent Controller, Jagadhari, to permit the parties to lead evidence and after hearing arguments to submit a report to this Court. The report has been received wherein it is found that the petitioner-landlord has no other house in Jagadhari except the demised premises, he has not vacated any house since the commencement of the 1949 Act without any sufficient cause and requires the demised premises bona fide for his own use and occupation.

(2.) The Rent Controller in this case had passed an order of ejectment on 30th November, 1978, on the ground of personal necessity of the petitioner. However, on tenant's appeal that order was reversed solely on the ground that the landlord had not pleaded all the ingredients of law.Since after amendment, the landlord has pleaded all the ingredients, the question which now arises for consideration is whether he was proved them and made out a case for passing an order of ejectment.

(3.) I have gone through the report and the evidence on the file and find that the report received now deserves to he accepted as correct. The tenant had alleged that the landlord vas living in another house owned by but this matter has been thoroughly gone into by the Rent Controller his report wherein a finding has been given that the house is not owned the landlord and was not being occupied by him in his own right but was being occupied by his brother as a tenant No reasonable argument been raised before me for taking a different view.