KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. SMT. JANKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant -petitioner has filed this present petition against the order of the Appellate Authority Ambala, dated 15th May, 1980, whereby order of the Rent Controller, Jagadhri, dated 28th September, 1979, was maintained.

(2.) The premises in dispute consists of a part of House No. 1058, situated in old Subzimandi Road, near Chuna Bhatti, Yamunanagar the ejectment was sought on the ground that the landlady bona fide requires the premises for her own use and occupation. It was stated in the ejectment application that she has no other house of her own within the municipal limits of Yamunanagar and that she had not vacated any house after the enactment of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act). In the written statement of the tenant petitioner it was pleaded that the landlady is living with her husband in a house which is owned and possessed by him. It was further stated that actually the landlady wanted to dispose of the premises in dispute after getting it vacated on such false pleas so that she might get a handsome price. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlady these allegations made in the written statement were denied and nothing waS stated as to whether she was living with her husband in a house which was owned and possessed by him. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : - -

(3.) The Rent Controller after going through the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the landlady bona fide required the premises for her ova use and occupation and she was not occupying any other building in the urban area concerned in her own right. Consequently, order of ejectment was passed against the tenant -petitioner. In appeal this finding of the Rent Controller was upheld. However, it has also been observed by the Appellate Authority that : - -