RAVINDER SURI Vs. KALA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) SHRIMATI Kala Wati, widow of Shri Dina Nath, sought the ejectment of her tenant Ravinder Suri from the demised premises on the first floor of house No. 64, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar City of which, Exhibit A.1 is the plan. The ejectment application was filed on October 17, 1981, that is more than ten years back. The house, in dispute, was constructed about eight years prior to the filing of the ejectment application. The landlady has only two issues; both daughters, living in Jullundur City. The landlady and her husband had been living with their elder daughter Mrs. Sudarshan married to Dr. B.L. Goel, in house No. 677, Model Town, Jullundur City, since the year 1970. The landlady's husband expired in the year 1978. The younger daughter of Mrs. Surinder Mohini was residing with her husband and children on the ground floor of the house, in dispute. The tenancy in favour of the tenant came into being on November 1, 1975 and the rent was Rs. 550/- per month. She sought his ejectment on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation as at present she was living with her daughter as a licensee. The application was contested on the plea that the tenant had taken the premises on rent from Dr. Goel and, therefore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Moreover, the landlady did not need the premises for her own occupation since she was comfortably lodged in the residence of Dr. Goel. The learned Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that she had, in fact, proved that she had the need to live in her own house after she had lost her husband who could manage the matters earlier for both of them. As a result of these findings, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. During the pendency of the appeal the tenant moved the application under Order 12 rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, for additional evidence in order to prove that during the pendency of the appeal two more rooms had been constructed by the landlady which were in her occupation and, therefore, she was no more in need of the demised premises. The said application was declined by the learned appellate authority with the observations :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition.