RAM PIARI Vs. KAUSHALAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Piari petitioner is the owner and landlady of House No. 2359, situate in Gali No. 1, Kot Kanaya Lal, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, which is in occupation of Kaushalya Devi respondent as a tenant. The petitioner filed a petition for ejectment against the respondent on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, sub-letting in favour of Lachhman Dass respondent and for her own bona fide requirement.

(2.) The petition was contested by Kaushalya Devi respondent. The arrears of rent were tendered and accepted by the petitioner. The Rent Controller found that the alleged sub-tenancy in favour of Lachhman Das was not proved. The plea of bona fide requirement of the house by the petitioner was upheld. The Rent Controller vide order dated April 24, 1978, directed Kaushalya Devi to vacate the premises within three months Kaushalya Devi filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority vide order dated September 21, 1979, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller about the bona fide requirement of the petitioner and consequently accepted the appeal of Kaushalya Devi and dismissed the ejectment application of the petitioner. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.

(3.) The petitioner herself is in occupation of one room only. She has admittedly three sons, out of which one is unmarried. According to her, her unmarried son is living with her while the other two are employed outside Amritsar. The case of Kaushalya Devi respondent in the Courts below was that all the three sons of the petitioner are serving outside Amritsar. Irrespective of the fact whether the unmarried son of the petitioner is living with her or not, the fact remains that the accommodation with the petitioner which consists of one room only is thoroughly insufficient particularly in view of the fact that her sons must be visiting her off and on.