BALWANT SINGH Vs. HARCHARAN SINGH BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. Harcharan Singh Bhandari, Landlord-respondent, hereinafter referred to as the landlord (since deceased) sought eviction of the demised premises from Balwant Singh, tenant petitioner hereinafter referred to as the tenant, on the ground that he needed the premises for his and his wife's occupation. The facts, underlying the need as mentioned in the petition, and also in his statement were that after retirement, he had been practicing at Gurdaspur, that he had closed his practice because he was not keeping good health that his wife became heart-patient and during the past about two years he had changed 2/3 rented houses and the house in his present occupation was a first storey portion which was not fit keeping in view the fact that his wife had become a heart-patient and that from Gurdaspur it became necessary to shift to his own house at Jullundur which happens to be in the occupation of the tenant.

(2.) THE Rent controller held that the landlord had not been able to make out that he genuinely needed in the premises. He somehow formed the impression that since to begin with the rent of the premises was Rs. 60 p m. which was later on increased to Rs. 140 /- p. m. , the eviction perhaps was sought in order to rent in out afresh at a higher rent. The Rent Controller also held that the landlord had not been able to establish that he had not vacated a similar residential premises after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act at Jullundur.

(3.) THE appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent controller on both the counts. It held that the landlord bona fide required the demised premises and that he had not vacated any reasonable cause after the commencement of the said Act.