GANPAT RAI Vs. PARSOTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur dated 8.10.1982, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller, Pathankot dated 17.12.1981.

(2.) THE petitioner landlord had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for eviction of the respondent-tenant from a part of his house on the ground floor on the ground of personal necessity. The house is situated within the municipal limits of Pathankot. One portion of this house comprising of three rooms, one bath room and one kitchen had been kept by him for himself for his personal use and remaining portion consisting of one kitchen, one store, one bath room, one verandah and two rooms with a courtyard on the front had been let out to the respondent-tenant. The petitioner's family at the relevant time consisted of himself, two sons and five daughters; three of whom were married and living in their respective homes. The petitioner claimed that his son was about to be married and, therefore, he required the additional accommodation for his own use. The Rent Controller rejected this petition on the ground that from the material on record it was no where evident that the son of the petitioner had been betrothed and that his marriage had been fixed. Thus it could not be spelt out that on account of the imminence of the marriage, his son was to live separately from the other members of the family. He, therefore, termed the plea of personal necessity of the landlord as speculative and not objective. He also referred to a earlier litigation in which similar claim made by the petitioner had been rejected by the Rent Controller and the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, was also rejected. These findings have been upheld by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order.

(3.) NO one is present on behalf of the respondent.