OM PARKASH Vs. PREM CHAND AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prem Chand respondent filed a application for ejectment of Om Parkash petitioner from one room apartment, a part of the house owned by the former, on the ground that he was living in a rented house with his wife and two children and paying Rs. 65/- per month as rent; that his total emoluments were Rs. 255/- per month and he was unable to pay the rent of Rs. 65/- month and that another room in his possession was in occupation of his mother and sister which accommodation was hardly sufficient for them. The petition was opposed by the tenant but the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority upheld the plea of the landlord and ordered ejectment of the petitioner, still dissatisfied, he has filed this petition under section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) Now, coming to the facts of the present case, the house owned by the landlord consists of three rooms and the verandah. Two rooms out of the three rooms were on rent, one with the present petitioner and the other with another tenant and the landlord, his mother and sister were living in one room and the verandah. When the petitioner was married, he took up a separate residence in the premises now in his possession on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/- as it would not have been possible for him to live in the same room with his mother and sister, With the passage of time, the respondent got two children and his family now consists of four members. His total income being Rs. 225/- per month, he found it difficult to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 65/- after the birth of the two children. On these facts, there can be no two opinions that the landlord has sufficient cause to vacate the premises on lease with him and to get the two rooms of his house vacated for his personal occupation. All the ingredients of section 13 of the Act, therefore, stand fully satisfied and the authorities below rightly upheld the claim of the landlord, This petition consequently must fail and is hereby dismissed but without any order as costs. The petitioner is allowed one month from today to vacate the premises in dispute.