KANWARJANG SINGH Vs. GURMUKH NAUNIHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the demised premises are required for personal bona fide use of requirement of the landlord.

(2.) THE respondent is owner of the house situated at Sahabad Markanda which was leased to the petitioner in the year 1977. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground that he has not paid the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.10.1993 to 31.7.1996 alongwith house tax and that he requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation as he wants to shift at Sahabad for looking after his agricultural land.

(3.) AFTER the parties led their evidence, learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition but the learned Appellate Authority found that the premises are required by the respondent for his bona fide personal use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that the relations of the landlord with his daughter-in-laws are not strained or that the accommodation in his possession is sufficient. However, the learned Appellate Authority found that the landlord has not sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground that his relations with his sons and daughters-in-law are strained or that the accommodation in his possession is insufficient. Rather he has sought the ejectment on the ground that he wants to shift to Sahabad in order to cultivate and manage his agricultural land. The learned Appellate Court found the house at Chandigarh is owned and occupied by two sons of the landlord who were residing along with their families therein. House at Mohali had been rented out by his wife who is its owner. While arriving at conclusion the learned Appellate Authority relied upon Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by L.Rs. v. Chaganlal Sunderji and Co., 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 485 (SC) : 2000 H.R.R. 8 and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 1998(2) RCR(Rent) 533 (SC) : (1999-1)121 P.L.R. 805 (SC).