ATMA NAND VIJ Vs. CH. GAJE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order of the Appellant Authority holding that the landlord had failed to make out personal necessity as a ground for the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises, warrants no interference.

(2.) THE facts, as emerge from the record, are that both the petitioner adn his wife has retired from service and are living in a recently constructed house at Gurgaon. Both the petitioner and his wife owned a residential accommodation at Karnal, which was in the possession of the respondents.

(3.) THE reason given by the petitioner for now seeking to obtain possession of the demised premises in Karnal is that, this is where persons from their brotherhood reside and they, therefore, wish to live with them. the evidence on record, however, shows, that at no stage did they eve live in Karnal and at any rate if the desires was to live in Karnal, there is no explanation why the petitioner constructed their houses at Gurgaon and are living there now.