RAJ KISHAN Vs. AJEET KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ambala dated 14th August, 1980 whereby the order of the Rent Controller ejecting the tenant-respondents was set aside and the application, for ejectment was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioners Raj Kishan and Jai Kishan filed an ejectment application seeking eviction of their tenant Kulwant Raj (now deceased) from the premises Nos. 5251-5251/A Mohalla Shambhu Attar Gur Mandi, Ambala Cantt, inter alia on their ground of bonafide requirement of personal use and occupation. It was pleaded in the ejectment application that they had purchased the house in question on 9th September, 1977, vide Exhibit A-1, for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for their own use and occupation as they did not posses any other house in Ambala Cantt. It was further pleaded that the petitioners required the house in question for their own use and occupation bonafide and at present they are residing in a house which is owned by their father Shri Sarup Chand Sharma and brother Shri Ram Kishan. The accommodation in this house is highly insufficient. In the written statement filed on behalf of the deceased tenant Kulwant Raj it was stated that the petitioners are occupying a palatial house at Ambala Cantt. in their own right. The accommodation this house is more than sufficient for their requirement. It is incorrect that the house occupied by the petitioners is owned by their father and brother. The same is owned by the petitioners. In the replication filed on behalf of the petitioners it was specifically stated that the petitioners are residing in House No. 5238 which belongs to their father Shri Saroop Chand Sharma and his brother Shri Ram Kishan, as licencees. They have otherwise no concern with this house. The accommodation in the said house is insufficient even for the family of its owners. It was further stated that there are four rooms in the said house No. 5238 besides kitchen etc, whereas the members residing in the same are nine. This accommodation is highly insufficient and that is why the petitioners purchased the present house for their use and occupation. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) The learned Rent Controller after going through the entire evidence and the case law cited at he came to the conclusion that the petitioner are not in possession of any other building in their own right and as such there was bonafide need of the tenanted premises for their own use and occupation and ultimately passed and order of ejectment. In appeal, the learned appellate authority has reversed this finding of the Rent Controller mainly relying on the judgment of this Court reported as Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi, 1980 1 RCR(Rent) 592. According to the appellate authority the landlord-petitioner are occupying house No. 5238 which according to them belongs to their father and brother, in their own right and therefore they are not entitled to seek ejectment from the tenanted premises. Feeling aggrieved against order, the landlord-petitioners have come up in revision in this Court.