TIRLOKINATH Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts as divulged by the parties are that Shri Vinod Kumar is the owner and landlord of House No 3294 Sector 35 -D, Chandigarh and that Shri Triloki Nath is the tenant on the ground floor The rent of the premises in question was settled at Rs 275/ - per month and in the first instance he was inducted as a tenant in the year 1973 by Shri Yashpal Gupta The said rate of rent further suffered increase from time to time and the last rate settled was Rs 500/ - per month

(2.) IT is averred that the plot where the demised premises were constructed was purchased in the year 1971 by Shri Yashpal Gupta, father of the landlord -Petitioner The construction f the demised premises was completed in the year 1972 It is on account of "Family Settlement" dated March 15, 1993 Ex R13, Shri Vinod Kumar became the owner/landlord of the demised premises However, in pursuant to the said family settlement, the sale deed dated February 24, 1994, was duly executed by the parties concerned and the same was registered accordingly In pursuant thereto, the demised premises stood transferred to the name of Shri Vinod Kumar, the Petitioner -landlord, in the records of the Estate Office. Chandigarh It is averred that the demised premises consist of four rooms, one kitchen, one store and two toilets The family of the Petitioner land -lord consists of himself his wife, two daughters aged about 11 years and one and half years at the time of filing of the petition and now the said two daughters have grown in age and that the Petitioner -landlord and his wife have been blessed with a son during the pendency of the petition. The petition had been filed seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the demised premises are required for personal use and occupation.

(3.) THE issues had been struck and the parties led evidence respectively. The learned Rent Controller returned findings on the issues in favour of the landlord and returned a specific finding that the Petitioner -landlord is residing on the first floor of House No. 578 sector 21 -A, Chandigarh, at the mercy of his brother and that he is not residing in the said house as a matter of right. Further it has been found as a matter of fact that the said house is a small house measuring 6/1/4 Marias and that the whole family, the father, mother, two brothers and their families and the family of the Petitioner -landlord found the said place insufficient for their requirement.