LILA RAM Vs. KUNDAL LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) is filed by the landlord who has concurrently failed on both the lower courts to seek the ejectment of the respondent-tenant. Though initially the ejectment was sought on various grounds, yet the only ground pressed before the subordinate authorities was that the petitioner needed the demised premises for his personal use and occupation.

(2.) As per the assertions made in the application under Section 13 of the Act and his evidence, the petitioner was employed as a teacher at Bhiwani and retired from that service in the year 1964-65. Subsequent thereto he continued to live at that very place as he was having some tuition work and also was in a position to manage his land situated some where near the town. In the year 1968, his landlord initiated proceeding for his ejectment from the house which was in his occupation as a tenant and the Rent Controller ordered his ejectment vide Exhibit R-2 on November 30, 1972. His appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed on January 7, 1974. During these proceedings and for some time later, he lived with his son Prem Parkash, AW2, who is stated to be an Executive Engineer in the Electricity Department and was posted at Faridabad. The petitioner filed the present application for the ejectment of the respondent on February 28, 1974. In a nut shell, the case pleaded by him was that not only he was living at Faridabad with his son as a licencee of the latter, but the accommodation with his son also was not enough keeping in view the number of the members of his family and it was difficult for the petitioner to stay on there. In support of this claim of his he examined Prem Parkash, AW2, his son, Charan Dass, AW3, Ram Chander, A.W.4, besides appearing himself as A.W. 6. On appreciation of the evidence, the subordinate authorities however, have recorded a finding that in view of certain circumstances the requirement pleaded by the petitioner was not genuine. In fact this is how the matter has been concluded by the lower appellate court so as far as it relates to the appreciation and veracity of petitioner evidence :-

(3.) The circumstances which have been taken notice of by the said authorities to discard this evidence of the petitioner are :-