SATYA WATI Vs. MAHADEV RAMAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by landlords-petitioners against the judgments passed by the courts below whereby the ejectment petition filed by them had been dismissed by the learn Rent Controller and the appeal filed by them was dismissed by the appellate authority.

(2.) FACTS , which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition, are that the landlords filed ejectment petition dated 11.2.1994 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to U.T. Chandigarh, seeking ejectment of the respondent-tenant Mahadev Ramaji Patil from one room on the first floor besides common bath room and latrine. It was alleged that the petitioners were owners/landlords of the demised premises whereas the respondent was in possession of one room besides common bath room and latrine on the first floor as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. It was alleged that petitioners purchased said house vide registered sale deed dated 22.9.1993 for their own use and occupation to live comfortably in the said house and since then they became owners and landlords. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 had family comprising of herself and her widowed daughter and her child whereas petitioner No. 2 had family comprising of herself, her husband and their four children and that the petitioners were in the need of two kitchens, two drawing rooms, two dining rooms and four bedrooms. It was alleged that presently there were only seven rooms in the entire house, whereas the need of the petitioners, jointly and severally, was 8 rooms besides two kitchens, two bath rooms and latrines. It was further alleged that husband of petitioner No. 2 retired in December 1993. It was alleged that the tenanted premises comprising one room was required by the petitioners for their own use and occupation. It was alleged that petitioner No. 2 had three daughters, the eldest one being 12 years of age and she required premises for her family so that children may get sufficient space to study and sleep. It was alleged that the applicant No. 1 was in occupation of the entire ground floor whereas applicant No. 2 was in occupation of first floor except one room, which was on rent with respondent. Besides that, applicant No. 2 was also having one room on the second floor. It was alleged that the accommodation available with applicant No. 2 was not sufficient to meet her requirements and as such tenanted premises were required by the applicants for their own use and occupation. It was alleged that respondentwas in arrears of rent and respondent and his family members were also creating nuisance.

(3.) PETITIONERS filed replication, controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the petition.