KUNDAN LAL Vs. JAGDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a petition filed on behalf of the tenant against whom order of ejectment has been passed both by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority, on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation.

(2.) The learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that the land-lord has failed to plead the necessary ingredients of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, consequently, in view of the Supreme Court Authority in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas,1979 81 PunLR 226 the application for ejectment is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. I have gone through the application filed by the landlord, as well as the notice issued by him before filing the ejectment application. In the application, it has been clearly stated that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his personal use and he wants to keep his residence therein after evicting the tenant and re-constructing the whole building. It may be noticed here that admittedly the landlord is living at Delhi and from there he wants to shift to Hoshiarpur where the premises in dispute are situated. In the notice, it has been clearly stated that he has no other accommodation in his possession within the Municipal limits of Hoshiarpur. The receipt of this notice is admitted by the tenant in his written statement in para 3. In view of these pleadings, it cannot be said that the necessary ingredients of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act have not been pleaded.

(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant next contended that the landlord has failed to prove his bona fide need to occupy the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. Mere wish of the landlord is not sufficient to prove his bona fide requirement. In support of this contention, he cited Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chanrakant M. Patel and others, 1974 AIR(SC) 1059.However, it will be a question of fact in each case to be decided on the evidence led by the parties. In the present case, both the authorities after going through the evidence, have concurrently found that the landlord requires the premises bona-fide for his own use and occupation. No illegality or impropriety has been pointed out, which may vitiate this concurrent finding of the authorities below.