OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. SARUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Prakash and Smt. Vidya Wati filed an application for ejectment of Sarup Singh tenant from a house on the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Controller ordered the ejectment, but on appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment petition. The landlords have come to this Court in revision. The ground mentioned in the ejectment petition was as follows: -

(2.) FACED with this situation, the counsel for the landlords has urged before me that although the house belongs to both the petitioners, in fact the petition was filed for personal use and occupation on behalf of Om Parkash only, who retired from railway service in the year 1974 and required the premises for his personal use. According to the pleadings contained in para 2(ii) quoted above, he was in possession of a house as a tenant besides the northern room in the house in dispute, but the learned counsel states that he meant the same store which belongs to his brother and which he was in possession as a licensee. No such inference can be drawn on the face of the pleadings and evidence on record of this case and it appears that the case was not properly conducted on behalf of the landlords. However, it will be open to the landlords to file a fresh petition for ejectment of the tenant after precisely stating the pleadings as observed by the Appellate Court and then to lead evidence in support thereof. The decision of this case will not stand in any way in the filing of fresh ejectment petition. This order is proposed in view Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1218.