J.C. UPPAL Vs. S.K. MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only ground on which the ejectment of the respondent was sought is that the landlord-petitioner No. 1 does not own and possess any suitable accommodation in the locality. The permission to defend the said petition was granted. In defence, the tenant took up the stand that the landlord-petitioner No. 1 is in occupation of ground floor which consists of four rooms, toilet and kitchen etc. He retired on 31st August, 1987 and rented out a portion of barsati in September, 1987 and applied for eviction of the tenant on 8th August, 1988. It was further stated that the landlord's family consists of only husband and wife. The two married daughters visit them off and on for a short duration. The Rent Controller after considering the contentions of the parties came to the conclusion that the landlord-petitioner No. 1 was already in possession of suitable accommodation and the ejectment petition suffered from lack of bonafides inasmuch as first floor was rented out to one Anand Ojha in the month of May, 1987 at the rate of Rs. 630/- per month, while the tenant was paying only Rs. 350/- per month.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner No. 1 urged that this Court cannot go into the question of sufficient or bonafide need of the accommodation and relies on Kapil Dev Gupta v. Ram Kishan 1988(1) RCR 473; 1987(2) RLR 728, Kapil Narain Rana, Advocate of Chandigarh v. Lt. Col. S.S. Gill s/o Shri D.S.G. II of Chandi Mandi District, Ambala, 1989(2) RCR 485 : 1989 HRR 201, Dr. B.R. Dullar of Patiala v. Dr. C.P. Sethi (Chander Parkash Sethi), 1989 HRR 235, Parminder Singh and another v. Budh Singh Kochar of Chandigarh, 1989 HRR 638 and Shakil Hussan v. Shri Daulat Ram Suman, 1990(1) RCR 5 : 1989 HRR 644.

(3.) IN my considered view, nothing noticeable has been pointed out from which it can be inferred that J.C. Uppal landlord is not in possession and owner of suitable accommodation. No error has been pointed out in the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller to the effect that he is in possession of the ground floor consisting of four rooms and the family consists of only husband and wife. It is not disputed that after retirement he leased out a portion of the first floor of the demised premises. There is no dispute with the proposition laid down in he judgment cited by he learned counsel for he petitioners that the sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation cannot be gone into. In the instant case, there is no question of sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation or the need of the landlord which is under consideratin. In fact the precise point on which both the parties crossed their swords and fought litigation before the Rent Controller was whether he was not an owner and in possession of suitable accommodation, on which finding has been given against the landlord and I find no impropriety or illegality in the impugned finding.