RATTAN ALIAS RATTAN LAL Vs. MOTI SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom an application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller but has been allowed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent sought the ejectment of his tenant from the house in dispute which consists of a part of a building, inter alia, on the ground that bonafide required the property for his own personal necessity as well as for other members of his family. It was alleged that the present accommodation with the landlord was not sufficient to accommodate him and members of his family. One son of the landlord was residing with his family in one Kotha on the Ground Floor of the premises in dispute with great difficulty and the same is not sufficient for his accommodation. Two other married sons of the landlord are also residing in his house separately and that after the eviction of the tenant, the house would be utilised for his personal needs as well as for the needs of his family. The application was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the landlord did not bonafide require the premises in dispute for his own occupation and for the members of his family. A plea was taken that the landlord wanted to sell away to property in dispute, and, therefore, he wanted to increase the rent to Rs. 70/- per mensem from Rs. 22/- which was now being paid.

(3.) ON the last date of hearing, an affidavit was filed by Moti Sagar landlord-respondent dated 11th August, 1983, in which it was stated that certain events had taken place after the order of the Rent Controller which were necessary to be brought on the record in order to do justice between the parties. It was stated therein that the landlord had celebrated the marriage of his two sons after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Rent Controller. His one son Jaspal was married in June 1981. After the marriage the said son and his wife were both residing with the landlord. Out of this wedlock, even one daughter was born in the year 1982. Jatinder Kumar, another son of the landlord, was also married in June, 1983. This son along with his wife also residing with the landlord. It was further stated therein that the landlord had got no other house with him in Hissar except the two houses which have been mentioned in Exhibits P-7 and P-8. In reply to the said affidavit, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Rattan Lal tenant dated 22nd August, 1983. As regards the marriage of two sons as the landlord, it was admitted. However, certain allegations were made that Kranti Kumar, son of the landlord, had vacated the two rooms, a kitchen and a bath-room on the ground Floor of House No. 137/1 as shown in Exhibit A-8. According to the tenant, the accommodation was still lying vacant and was not occupied, by the landlord. It was further stated that the landlord had purchased property No. 119/V-2 in the year 1979-80 in Moti Bazar, Hissar, and had reconstructed the entire property with two residential rooms on the First Floor. The said residential rooms were in fact lying vacant.