GURDIAL SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur dated October 22, 1979 affirming the judgment of the Rent Controller, dismissing the application for ejectment.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Gurdial Singh landlord, who was Chief Agricultural Officer, gave the house in dispute on lease to Ram Singh Sachdeva, respondent on a rent of Rs. 250/ - per mensum, in January, 1971. The petitioner retired from the service on April 4, 1972. He filed on application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation and that of his married son and that he had not vacated any house within the residential area of Jullundur without any sufficient cause. The application was contested by the respondent, who controverted the allegations of the petitioner. He further pleaded that an open space, servant quarters and a garage were also rented out to him which have not been included in the application for ejectment and consequently the application was bad being for ejectment from part of the property. Some other pleas were also taken but they do not survive in the Revision Petition.

(3.) IT was contended by Mr. Sarin that the petitioner was working as Chief Agricultural Officer in January 1971 when he leased out the house to the respondent with an understanding that it would be vacated by him in April, 1973 when he would retire from government service. He further argued that the respondent seeing the necessity of the petitioner had agreed to vacate the premises in the first week of April, 1973, and gave a writing dated 5th December, 1972, in that regard. According to him, the learned Appellate Authority, while deciding the appeal, did not discuss the evidence of the petitioner and affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. He next submitted that the Appellate Authority further erroneously held that the petitioner had leased out the house to the respondent in January, 1971, that is, about one year and three months prior to the date of retirement and thus he had vacated the premises to question without sufficient cause. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the finding that the petitioner did not require the premises either for his own use and occupation or that of his son is one of fact and cannot be reversed in revision petition.