TEJ SARUP Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent - landlord sought eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal need. The application was resisted primarily on the ground that the landlord was occupying another accommodation, though as a tenant and hence he was not entitled to ask for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. The two forums, i.e., the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have given concurrent finding of fact that the accommodation which the respondent is occupying at the moment as a tenant, is insufficient for his needs and hence he is entitled to get his own house vacated for his occupation. The present revision petition is directed against the concurrent finding, referred to above.

(2.) At the motion stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, 1980 2 RCJ 188, in order to contend that the respondent is admittedly occupying another premises and claims to be paying rent for the premises to.his brother. As such, the respondent was not entitled to claim the eviction of the petitioner from his own property. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice of motion was issued for today. I have today heard both the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) I have gone through the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and my attention has been directed to paragraph 10 of the said authority, wherein the matter of insufficiency of accommodation in the premises which the landlord is occupying as a tenant, was considered. The Division Bench dealing with Karnail Singh's case referred to an earlier Full Bench decision in Messrs Sant Ram Des Raj v. Karam Chand,1962 PunLR 758 and held that where a landlord is occupying some premises as a tenant and is able to show that the accommodation in that premises is insufficient for his needs, he can certainly ask for eviction applicable to the facts of the present case. As These observations are fully already observed, both the Authorities below have come to a concurrent finding on the question of insufficiency of accommodation available to the respondent. It is not the function of this Court in a Revision Petition to re-open the matter and re-appraise the evidence for coming to a different conclusion. In passing, it may also be observed that in Karnail Singh's case their Lordships of the Division Bench further observed as follows :