KASTURI LAL HANDA Vs. BHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD Bhajan Singh filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the ejectment of his tenants Kasturi Lal on three grounds, namely that the tenant has not paid rent with effect from 1.3.1982 to 31.1.1983; secondly that he had sublet the premises to Ashok Kumar Handa; and thirdly that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation. He further averred that he wants to shift from Delhi to Patiala as medical facilities, security, social life is available at Patiala. The tenant resisted the application on the ground that he is not liable to the ejected as he has tendered the rent on the first date of hearing along with costs and interests. He also denied that the premises have been sublet by him to Ashok Kumar Handa. He further denied that the premises in dispute are required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller, after appreciating the entire evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the tenant was not liable to be ejected, as not only that he tendered the rent but also that the landlord has failed to prove that the tenant has sublet the premises or that he bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently the ejectment application filed by the landlord was dismissed. The learned Rent Controller while deciding the issue relating to the personal necessity found that the landlord owned a house at Delhi which is built upon 100 square yards plot and consists of three rooms plus two rooms on the first floor whereas the premises in dispute consist only of two rooms and that too are built upon an area of 70 square yards. It was further found that the landlord retired from service 9-10 years ago but he continued to reside at Delhi. Being aggrieved of the order of the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority who affirmed the decision of the learned Rent Controller with regard to the alleged subletting but passed an order of ejectment on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation. The tenant has preferred the present revision petition against the order of the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Appellate Authority has ignored the material evidence which was duly considered by the learned Rent Controller. He further submitted that no cogent and convincing reasons have been given by the Appellate Authority for setting aside the detailed order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The requirement of the landlord to shift from Delhi to Patiala was also challenged being not bonafide. In reply to this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this Court should not interfere in revision as it is not within the scope of revisional jurisdiction to upset a finding of fact recorded by Appellate Authority. In support of this proposition he has relied upon two judgments of this Court; (i) Amar Nath (deceased) v. Som Nath (deceased), 1982(1) RCR 457 : 1982 C.L.J. 173, and (ii) Siri Ram v. Air Com. Mahabir Chand, 1991 C.L.J. 270.