PURAN CHAND Vs. SWARN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Puran Chand, tenant - petitioner, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Karnal, dated April 11, 1979, where by the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment has been maintained.

(2.) The landlords - respondents sought ejectment of Puran Chand, tenant petitioner, inter alia on the ground that they required the premises, in dispute, for their own occupation, which was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that they were already in occupation of a house which was sufficient for their requirements and the ejectment application had been filed with a view to put pressure on him to increase the rent. The learned Rent Controller, after going through the whole evidence on the record, held that the accommodation with the landlords - respondents was insufficient and there was nothing on the file to show that the need put forward by them was mala fide and thus, came to the conclusion that the landlords - respondents required the premises for their own use and occupation. On appeal, these findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller were affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the tenant petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) Admittedly, the premises, in dispute, were purchased by the landlords - respondents on June 5, 1975. The application for ejectment against the tenant - Petitioner was filed on March 4, 1975. The premises, which were previously in occupation of the landlords - respondents as tenant, were got vacated by their landlord, Harphul Singh, by filing an application for ejectment on December 2, 1972. The order of ejectment in that case, in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, was passed on May 1, 1975, and according to the same, the premises were to be vacated by the landlords - respondents on or before April 3, 1976. On these facts, the learned counsel for the tenant - Petitioner contended that there was no sufficient cause for vacating the premises, in occupation of the landlords - respondents, as tenants, and in support of his contenion, relied upon Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, 1980 2 RCJ 188. He also contended that it is in evidence of the landlord themselves that after vacating the premises in their possession, they got on rent another premises though for tethering their cattle, and according to the learned counsel, that accommodation has also to be taken into consideration in order to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation with the landlords - respondents. He further contended that since the Appellate Authority has not discussed the evidence, the revision petition should be accepted on this ground alone and the case may be remanded for fresh decision.