MATHRA DASS Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but was dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord-petitioner, Mathura Dass, sought the ejectment of his tenant Kewal Krishan, respondent, from the residential house, in dispute, situated in the urban area of Barnala, inter alia on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. It was also pleaded that except the two chaubaras which he was occupying for the time being, there was no other accommodation with him and that the said accommodation was insufficient for his purposes as his family consisted of himself, six children, his wife and his mother, besides the two married daughters. In the written statemen filed on behalf of the respondent, he controverted the allegations made in the eviction application. On trial, the Rent Controller found that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was also found that the accommodation already in his occupation was insufficient to meet the requirement of his family. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller as it was found that the landlord had no bonafide requirement in respect of the demised premises. As a result, the eviction order passed by the Rent controller was set aside and the eviction application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the learned Rent Controller, after discussing the entire evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation, but the said finding has been reversed by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily and whimsically. Thus argued the learned counsel, the finding of the Appellate Authority is vitiated.