RAMESH KUMAR Vs. RAJ PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 18th April, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his application was maintained.

(2.) The eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute was sought on the ground that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent and secondly that the landlord required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation It was also pleaded that the landlord is sharing the residential accommodation with his, father Baldev Sahai in the latter's house; that the residential accommodation in his possession was as a licensee and was not sufficient to accommodate the members of the two families and that no other residential house was in possession of the landlord in his own right, nor any residential house was vacated by him after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The tenant in his written statement controverted these allegations of the landlord. It was pleaded that the landlord had sufficient accommodation for his own use and occupation; that he is not a resident of Patiala and is living at Gula Cheeks where he is running business and that the landlord has filed this application in order to coerce the tenant to enhance the monthly rent. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) The Rent Controller on the question of bonafide requirement of the premises for own use and occupation, came to the conclusion that the need was not a bonafide one and the landlord has failed to produce the best evidence in this respect. The relevant observations are: