JOGINDER SINGH Vs. NAND KISHORE ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAND Kishore and Vidya Sagar sought ejectment of their tenant from a residential house in Amritsar on the ground of personal necessity. In the ejectment application all that was stated about this matter, was as follows :-

(2.) NO other details were mentioned in the ejectment petition as to why they needed the house for their own residence. The landlord's address given in the ejectment petition was of Amritsar. It was not mentioned in the ejectment petition that they were living at Jammu where they had gone after the death of their father in search of some avocation or profession. As already noticed, no detailed reasons for shifting from Jammu to Amritsar were mentioned in the petition. The tenant contested the ejectment petition. The landlords produced three witnesses besides one of them appeared as A.W.4, A.W.2 is a Draftsman of District Courts Amritsar, who has prepared the site plain at the spot; whereas A.W.s. 1 and 3 stated that the landlords needs the house for their own occupation and that they have no other residential house in the urban area of Amritsar. Vidya Sagar, one of the landlords has appeared as A.W.4 and his entire statement in examination-in-chief is as follows :-

(3.) NEITHER in the ejectment petition, nor in the statement made in Court the landlord has stated that they wanted to shift to Amritsar to do business or to carry on a tailoring shop. In view of the statement of the landlord it cannot be said that they have furnished any proof or inkling to be accepted by the Courts for shifting from Jammu to Amritsar. I am clearly of the view that the Appellate Authority has gone wrong in upsetting the well considered decision of the Rent Controller and in ordering eviction of the tenant on matters which were never pleaded in the ejectment petition, nor deposed to by Vidya Sagar landlord in his statement.