K.K. YADAV Vs. SATYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the orders, passed by the Courts below, whereby the ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller and the Appeal, filed by the tenant, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Smt. Satya Devi and Shakuntla Devi, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against K.K. Yadav (tenant), seeking his eviction from the demised premises, on the ground that the building in question was purchased by them (Smt. Satya Devi, etc.) vide sale deed dated 22.10.1982 and 25.10.1982 and that the husband of Smt. Satya Devi was occupying the ground floor of the building in question and was running his business therein, whereas K.K. Yadav was a tenant on the first floor and Barsati under the original owner and after the purchase of the building, they (Satya Devi etc.) had become entitled to receive the rent as landladies and that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. They sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and that applicant No. 1, Smt. Satya Devi, required the building for her residence, as she did not have any other building in Bhatinda for her residence and had not vacated any such building, after the coming into force of the Rent Act and they had bona fide necessity, since she was residing in a rented house and it will be beneficial for the family, as the husband of applicant No. 1, Smt. Satya Devi, was running his business on the ground floor and she can help her husband. The said petition was contested by K.K. Yadav, tenant, alleging therein that he came to know about the purchase of building by the applicants on receipt of a written notice. He admitted that he was a tenant under the applicants qua the demised premises on the same terms and conditions. It was alleged that rent upto 31.3.1983 stood paid to the previous owner and for the subsequent period, had been tendered on the first date of hearing, besides interest and costs. However, it was alleged that there was no liability to pay the house tax. It was further alleged that the applicants, Smt. Satya Devi and another, had no necessity to get the house vacated. It was denied that they had any bona fide personal necessity.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.