NASIB CHAND Vs. MOHAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant -Petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated May 2, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment has been maintained.

(2.) MOHAN Singh and others, landlord -Respondents, filed a petition for; the ejectment of tenant Nasib Chand in respect of rented land situated at Banga, which was rented to him at Rs. 10 per month. It was alleged that Harmit Singh, one of the landlords, had retired from Military service and had settled permanently in Banga. He intends to start his own business on the rented land in dispute and so it is required by him for his own use. He had no other such land, nor has he vacated any. This allegations of personal requirement was contested by the tenant and it was stated that the landlords only wanted to enhance the rent. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord Respondents submitted that when the landlord is not doing any other business and the application is not proved to be mala fide, the requirement will be taken to be a bona fide one. According to the learned Counsel, the landlord need not to prove anything further in this respect. Moreover, no such question was put to the landlord while in the witness box as to the technical know how for the factory he wants to establish. Further he submitted that the story of the tenant that the landlords want to enhance the rent has been found to be false by both the authorities below arid therefore under these circumstances the application for ejectment has been rightly held to be a bona fide one. The learned Counsel also contended that whether the requirement is a bona fide one or not is a question of fact and there being concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below, the same cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.