ROSHAN LAL Vs. RAMESH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed on behalf of the tenant against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the rent controller but was allowed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord (respondent) sought the ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute which were described to be a rented land inter alia on the ground of his bonafide requirement for his personal use and occupation. The application was contested on the plea that the tenant was previously a tenant under Shri Ramji Lal on the monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and in fact one room over the premises was in existence when the premises were leased out to him and since then he had been carrying on his business in the premises in dispute which was a non-residential building. The allegations of bonafide requirement were also denied. The learned Rent Controller found that the demised premises are not an open 'taur' but are non-residential building as it had some constructions in the shape of room, shed and boundary walls which did exist there at the time when it we rented out by Kishan Dayal to the tenant. The plea of bonafide requirement was also negatived. As a result of these findings, the application for ejectment was dismissed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said findings of the rent controller and found that the landlord has led sufficient and cogent oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the premises to be rented land at the time when the same were tenanted to the tenant, whereas the tenant has miserably failed to establish that the demised premises was a commercial building when it was leased out to him. It was also found that the landlord required the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. As a result of these findings, an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has come up in revision in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition.