BEHARI LAL Vs. DURJAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 6.8.1980, I had allowed the landlord to amend his ejectment petition to plead all the necessary ingredients to seek eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The matter was remanded to the Rent Controller where amended ejectment petition was filed and after reply of the tenant, both the parties were allowed to lead evidence and a report was required to be submitted to this Court. Report dated 6.10.1981 has been received from the Rent Controller. A reading of the report shows that within the urban area concerned, namely, the town of Narnaul, the landlord is in occupation of residential premises and as such he cannot have the premises in dispute vacated.

(2.) Shri Hari Mittal, appearing for the landlord, has urged that the premises, which is shown in plan Exhibit A.5 and about which a report has been made by the Rent Controller is a non-residential premises because he is carrying on business there and is tethering cattle. Before the point is gone into, it will be necessary to advert to the amended pleadings raised by the landlord.

(3.) The landlord has pleaded that the premises occupied by him, shown in plan Exhibit A.5, are non-residential premises and that he is not occupying any premises within the urban area of Narnaul town and as such requires the premises in dispute for his personal residence. It was also pleaded that in case the premises shown in plan Exhibit A.5 are treated as residential, he still requires the house in dispute for his family members who live in the village. In his own statement, the landlord has admitted that he is living all alone in a part of the premises shown in plan Exhibit A.5. In the pleadings he did not give description of his family members. However, in his statement he stated that the has an adopted son who is doing farming in the village and whenever he goes to the village for farming, they come to Narnaul to look after the business. He did not state that the family members who were living in the village, wanted to shift to Narnaul and that the accommodation in his occupation was insufficient. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the family of landlord consists of himself alone and for him, the accommodation in the property shown in the siteplan Exhibit A.5 was enough. Similarly is the report now received. I find no reason to differ either with the report now received or with the findings of the Appellate Authority.