BUDHU Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition is directed against the orders of Authorities under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the 'act') dis- missing the ejectment application of the petitioner. The petitioner in his ejectment application alleged that the premises consisting of one room were let out to the respondent on a rent of Rs. 507- per month and he having retired from M. E. S. where he was working as a Peon, requires the premises for his own use and occupation.

(2.) THE respondent inter-alia, contested the ejectment application filed by the petitioner, on the ground that the rate of rent is not Rs. 50/- as alleged by the petitioner, but is Rs. 20/- per month. As regards the ground of personal necessity, it was stated by the respondent that the petitioner does not require the premises for his own use and occupation. The ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller who after appreciating the evidence on record found that the room in dispute was let out to the respondent on a rent of Rs. 20/- per month. The ground of personal necessity was decided against the petitioner primarily on the ground that the entire property consisted of two rooms, and during the pendency of the petition, one room had fallen vacant which is in possession of the petitioner. Considering the status of the petitioner, one room was found to be sufficient for his requirement. Being' aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge), Ambala. The said appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7. 1. 1989. The petitioner has impugned the orders of both the Courts below in this present revision petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that this revision petition deserves to succeed. The entire premises consists of two rooms and admittedly, one room is in occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner in his statement before the Rent Controller has categorically stated that he has seven married daughters and also one unmarried son who is residing at Delhi and all of them keep on visiting him from time to time and the accommodation in his possession is quite insufficient to meet his requirements He further stated that he does not own any other house except the house in dispute which consists of two rooms only and has not vacated any premises after coming into force of the Act. The approach of the Authorities below that taking into consideration the status of the petitioner, only one room is sufficient for his requirement cannot be sustained inasmuch as even if the petitioner retired as Peon but his family consists of seven married daughters and one unmarried son. Keeping in view that the petitioner has a large family and his son and daughters keep on visiting him from time to time, by no stretch of imagination, one room can be said to be sufficient for his requirement.