PIARE LAL Vs. WAZIR CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule directed against an order of the appellate authority Mr. J.S. Bedi, Dist. J. Ambala, holding that the rent had been paid in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act of 1949 and that the premises were not needed for the personal occupation of the landlord.

(2.) ON 04-08-1949 the landlord gave notice to the tenants for vacating the premises and on the 5th of August they made an application for reduction of rent which was later on reduced from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 20/- on the ground that Rs. 20/- was the standard rent of the premises. On 10-08-1949 the landlord applied to the Rent Controller for the eviction of the tenants and the Rent Controller held that proper amount of rent had been tendered to accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act but the landlord did require the premises 'bona fide' for his personal occupation and he ordered eviction. An appeal was taken to the appellate authority - in this case the Dist. J. Ambala - who agreed with the Rent Controller on the first point but reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the second ground holding that this part of the application of the landlord was not 'bona fide' meaning thereby that the landlord did not require the premises for his personal occupation. The rule was issued on 06-12-1950 by my learned brother Khosla, J.

(3.) THE Calcutta High Court has in previous cases interpreted the word "superintendence." In Sukh Lal v. Tara Chand Ta, 33 Cal 68, which was a Full Bench judgment, it was observed by Maclean, C.J., at p. 77: