HATINDER SINGH Vs. DROPATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO exception can indeed be taken to the finding of the appellate authority that the demised premises were bona fide required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation and the consequent order of ejectment passed against the tenant.

(2.) THE demised premises consists of a room and a kitchen with premissive common use of the courtyard and bath room. The petitioner Hatinder Singh was inducted as a tenant in these premises on March 15, 1980.

(3.) THE material on record shows that the accommodation with the landlord consists of two rooms on the ground floor and one on the first floor besides a miani and a Barsati. The family of the landlord consist of his wife lour daughters and a son. Two daughters were already married when the promises were let out to the tenant while the third was married during the pendency of these proceedings.