PREM CHAND Vs. RAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against the orders of the authorities below vide which order of eviction has been passed, against him.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, Ram Dass landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (for short 'the Act') against the tenants on the grounds of non-payment of rent and the premises being required for personal occupation of the landlord and his family. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Rent Controller, respondents put in appearance and controverted the allegations made in the application. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:"

(3.) THE landlord in support of his contention stated that the demised premises is needed for his personal use and occupation and that of his family members namely his sons Vijay Dewan, Rajinder Dewan and Gopal Dewan. He himself appeared as A. W. 1 and examined Rajinder Paul as A. W. 2 and Amrit Lal Verma as A. W. 3. It has come in evidence that the landlord has accommodation consisting of two rooms, a Baithak and a bath-room in Mohalla Diwana, Maler-kotla, which according to the landlord is insufficient in view of the number of his family members who are presently residing with him. Both his sons Gopal Dewan and Rajinder Dewan are married. Rajinder Dewan has also got a son. Besides, his other son namely Vijay Dewan is residing separately for the last so many years in view of the lack of accommodation. Landlord's three married daughters also occasionally visit their parental house. It has also come in evidence that the area of this house is 11 feet x 9 feet. With these averments, the landlord claimed possession of the accommodation which is in possession of the tenants. As proved on record, the tenants have in their possession a room, a Chhapar and a small courtyard. The Rent Controller, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accommodation with the landlord is too insufficient and accordingly ordered the eviction of the tenants vide order dated January 15, 1985.