RATTAN SINGH Vs. BHANU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the tenant under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) it directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated October 13, 1978 whereby the order of the Rent Controller was reversed and the petition for ejectment allowed.

(2.) Although the ejectment was sought on several grounds, but the out which prevailed with the Appellate Authority is that of personal necessity. The finding recorded is that the landlord is in possession of House No. which consists of three rooms. The family of the landlord consisted of six persons including four sons. It was therefore, found that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was insufficient for his needs. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged this finding on the ground that the Appellate Authority Has under some misapprehension regarding the accommodation in possession of the landlord and the tenant inasmuch as it is said that the tenant is in possession of the ground floor and the landlord of the first floor. No doubt this mis-statement of fact has inadvertently crept in the order, but that has hardly any effect on the merits of the case. The map of the accommodation is possession of the landlord has been produced by the tenant as Ex. R. 1 from which it is clear that there are four rooms, in all in the house in possession of the landlord, out of them hardly two rooms can he available for residential purposes. The Appellate Authority has, therefore, rightly, held that the accommodation is not sufficient for the reeds of the landlord.

(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant then contented that the landlord is also in occupation of several rooms on the first floor of the house in dispute. No doubt the tenant has stated so, but no such suggestion was made either to the landlord or to any of the witnesses produced by the latter. Moreover, no plan of the first floor of the house has been produced, although a plan of the ground floor has been duly proved. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the tenant or his witnesses that any accommodation on the first floor of the house is dispute is available or is in occupation of the landlord. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, thus has any substance and this petition is accordingly dismissed. The tenant is, however, allowed two months' time to vacate the premises in dispute. No costs. Revision dismissed.