DES RAJ Vs. JAGDISH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Des Raj, landlord petitioner, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated Sept. 24, 1979, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, Jullundur dated Oct. 28, 1978 directing the ejectment of Shrimati Jagdish Kaur, tenant-respondent, from the demised premises was set aside.

(2.) Shrimati Jagdish Kaur, was the tenant in the portion of house No. WB-80, comprising of two rooms, kitchen, bath room and the courtyard, on a monthly rent of Rs. 47.50 since the year 1966. Her ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the land lord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The other grounds though taken in the ejectment application are not relevant for the purpose of this revision petition. It was pleaded therein that the premises, in question, were bona fide required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation as the accommodation available with him was quite insufficient to meet his and his family's requirements. He was in occupation of only two rooms and one kitchen in house No. WB-80; was not in occupation of any other residential building in the urban area of Jullundur City and had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. The family of the landlord consisted of his mother, his wife, three sons and a married daughter. Two sons of the landlord were studying in the eighth and the ninth classes. His elder son was about 23 years old. The eviction application was filed on Apr. 26, 1975. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant respondent had got four rooms, a kitchen, a big courtyard and a parchhati in his possession which were sufficient for his and his family's accommodation. None of the petitioner's son was married. The petitioner had previously also filed an application for the ejectment of the respondent which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on Jan, 31, 1967. In that application also, the landlord had pleaded that he bona fide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation, and the decision in that application operated as res judicata. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the learned Rent Controller, rightly held that the children of the landlord were not small kids and two of them were school going while the third was grown up and the requirement of separate study rooms for the school going children cannot be dubbed to be mala fide or unrealistic. His elder son was 24 years old while the other two sons were 20 and 16 years old respectively and were the students of the tenth and the ninth class, respectively. The betrothal of his eldest son had also been performed and he was to be married. It has been stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that after the passing of the order by the Rent Controller, the eldest son of the petitioner has been married and out of that wedlock, a child has also been born. According to the learned counsel, the approach of the learned Appellate Authority was wholly illegal and it misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide requirement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Appellate Authority, after going through the evidence, has given a firm finding that the requirement of the landlord was not a bona fide one and it being a finding of fact., cannot be interfered with in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Moreover, there is no evidence that there is any change in the status of the landlord after he let out the premises, in the year 1966 to the respondent; rather one of the family members, i.e., his mother, has died and thus, the number of his family members has decreased and, therefore, there was no question of any bona fide requirement, as alleged by the landlord.