(1.) THIS is landlords' petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant Banta Ram from the demised premises which is a part of the building which belongs to Krishan Lal etc. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the appellant bonafide require the house for their own use and occupation and that they are neither occupying any other residential house nor vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act within the urban area concerned.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the two of the applicant landlords, namely, Ram Krishan and Johnston Lal are living abroad while the third applicant Krishan Lal has established muniari business in a shop owned by him and also owns residential house sufficient for his accommodation in village Naru Nangal and thus, he does not bonafide require the demised house for his own use and occupation. In view of this, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority found that Krishan Lal along with his two sons is living at village Naru Nangal in a residential house which consists of two rooms, one on the ground floor and another on the first floor. He further found that the landlords have failed to prove that they bonafide require the demised premises for their own use and occupation. According to the Appellate Authority, "from their own use and occupation. According to the Appellate Authority, "from the evidence let in, it is not proved that he intends to give up his business of general merchandise being carried on in his own shop at village Naru Nangal. Nor it is alleged or shown that he intends to shift his business to Hoshiarpur. Neither of his two sons has appeared in the witness box at the trial before the Rent Controller." In view of these findings, the order of the Rent Controller rejecting the application was maintained.