VIJAY KUMAR Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners(tenant nos.1,2 & 4 to 7) are in revision against the concurrent findings returned by both the Authorities below whereby the ejectment application filed by the respondents(landlords) on the ground of personal necessity for themselves, cease to occupy the premises since 1992 and the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide his order dated 23.08.2007 and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar vide his order dated 21.12.2012.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that the respondents(landlords) Harbhajan Singh and Harvinder Singh who are brothers, filed an eviction petition against the petitioners(tenants) on the ground that the property in question is required by them as both of them have their respective families and are at present living in a house along with their father which now is not sufficient to accommodate such a big family especially when there is an altercation with the father now. It was also averred that the petitioners (tenants) have ceased to occupy the premises in question since the year 1992 and thus are entitled to eviction on this ground as well. Finally it was stated that since the house has been locked for so many years and the rain water enters the house in dispute, therefore, it has also become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Thus eviction was sought.

(3.) Upon notice, petitioners(tenants) filed reply whereby it was stated that the transfer of property in favour of the respondents(landlords) by the original owner is malafide and only a way to create ground of personal necessity. It was also stated that there is no personal necessity as alleged by the respondents(landlords) and the petitioners(tenants) are occupying the demised premises since the inception of tenancy and, therefore, no ground for cease to occupy or the building becoming unfit and unsafe is made out as they are still residing in the demised premises. Replication was filed wherein the entire contents of the petition were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied.