LAL CHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. SURJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Patiala dated 29th of April 1977, whereby the order of the learned Rent Controller directing ejectment of their tenant was set aside. The landlord petitioners sought the ejectment of their tenant Surjan Singh from the house in dispute situated at Bassi Pathanan inter alia on the ground that they bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation. The allegations were also made that the house was given for residential purpose. but the tenant has started using the same for Atishbazi (fire work) purposes which has resulted in demolishing some portion of the said house. Thus the acts of the tenant are likely to impair the value and utility of the said house. These allegations were controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of tenant. It was pleaded that he is occupying the premises for the last about nineteen years. It was also pleaded that Bithal Kumar son of Lal Chand was not the owner of the house or the landlord qua him. It was further pleaded that the portion of the house being kacha from inside had fallen down in rains about 14 years back and Lal Chand landlord had not constructed the same despite repeated requests, but instead removed the material. He denied having used it for Atishbazi purposes or that the deals in fire works. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:

(2.) The learned Rent Controller passed the ejectment order. It came to the conclusion that there existed relationship of landlord and a tenant between the parties, though Bithal Bector was not the landlord as claimed by Lal Chand.

(3.) On issue No. 2 it was held that it was established from the evidence on the record that the portion of the house in dispute had fallen down due to the faults of the tenant and on this ground he was liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute. On the ground of bonafide requirement the Rent Controller came to conclusion that since the landlords were not owning any other house except the house in dispute, their need was bonafide. In appeal all these findings of the Rent Controller have been reversed and as a result thereof, the order of eviction was set aside. Feeling aggrieved against this, the land-lords have come up in revision of this Court.