BALWANT SINGH Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated March 28, 1981, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment was maintained.

(2.) The landlords-respondents sought the ejectment of the petitioner from the rented land, in dispute, which is a vacant plot No. 314-C, situated in Mohalla Riazpura Shiva Ji Park, Jullendur City. Initially, the plot, in dispute, was owned by Roshan Lal from whom the petitioner took it on rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. The landlords-respondents purchased the same from him (Roshan Lal) through registered sale deed dated October 1, 1976. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought inter alia on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent since October 1, 1975, personal necessity and the bonafide requirement of the landlords for their own use and occupation as they wanted to start coal and wood business on the site, in dispute, and also on the ground that the petitioner had materially impaired the value and utility of the site, in question, by constructing two rooms and a wall without the consent of the previous landlord or the present landlord. The application was resisted by the petitioner and it was inter alia pleaded that the sale in favour of the present landlords, vitiated and was a benami transaction. The present landlord being the successors-in-interest of Roshan Lal, the previous landlord, were estopped from filing the ejectment application, as on similar grounds, the previous application filed on behalf of Roshan Lal on the grounds of his personal requirement and materially impairing the value and utility of the site, in dispute, was dismissed. The petitioner tendered the arrears of rent at the first hearing. The personal requirement of the landlords as claimed by them, was denied, on the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) The learned counsel of the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner nowhere admitted in his testimony that the landlord bonafide required the premises in dispute, for their own use and occupation and that the authorities below have misread his statement without context. According to the learned counsel, apart from the alleged admission of the petitioner, there is no other evidence on the record to prove the bonafide requirement of the landlords. It was also stressed that the mere wish of the landlords was not sufficient to constitute their bonafide requirements so as to entail his eviction from the demised premises and as such, their version could not be accepted unless there was an element of need and not a mere desire. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Rattan Chand Jain v. Charan Singh, 1978 1 RCR(Rent) 265.