RAJ KUMAR Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision filed by Raj Kumar-tenant against the order of Appellate Authority, Jalandhar dated 27.11.2001 whereby he allowed the appeal of Ashwani Kumar and another-landlords and ordered his ejectment from House No. 32 situated in Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar and thus, set aside the order of Rent Controller, Jalandhar dated 4.12.1996 whereby their ejectment application had been dismissed.

(2.) FACTS : Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sons of Kewal Krishan r/o WP 32, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar-petitioners filed ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") for the ejectment of Raj Kumar-tenant from H.No. 32, shown red in the site plan Ex.A-2 attached thereto situated in Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar. It is alleged in this application that they purchased this house vide sale deed dated 26.12.1991 for their own use and occupation. Raj Kumar is a tenant at a rental of Rs. 50/- power month. He is liable to be ejected on the ground that he is in arrears of rent with effect from 26.12.1991 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month, which he has failed to pay to Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, petitioners-landlords. Ashwani Kumar has three members of his family, which includes besides himself, his wife, one son and one daughter. Rakesh Kumar has also three members of his family which includes besides himself his wife and two sons. At present they are residing in the house of their father consisting of one room and one kitchen which has been shown in green in the site plan and one room on rent from Roshan Lal. House No. 33 is adjacent to the house in dispute. They are in possession of first floor of House No. 32. Accommodation on the first floor with them is insufficient. Rakesh Kumar is a doctor. He requires accommodation for the treatment of patients, who visit him in the morning as well as in the evening in emergency cases. Their father has asked them to vacate the accommodation with them in House No. 33 as their father feels insufficiency of accommodation with him in House No. 33. They have no other accommodation, which they call look to for meeting their requirement other than House No. 32. They have neither purchased nor sold nor have vacated any other accommodation since the enactment of the Act.

(3.) RENT was tendered at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month on the first date of hearing, which was accepted by the counsel for Ashwani Kumar and Rakesh Kumar under protest, tender being invalid.