SATYA NARAIN Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's revision petition whose application for ejectment has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The petitioner sought the ejectment of his tenant, Ram Chander, inter alia on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that no ground for ordering the ejectment had been made out and consequently, dismissed the eviction petition. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller. However, it was argued before the Appellate Authority on behalf of the landlord that he may be allowed to amend his ejectment application so as to plead the ground that he also bonafide required the premises for his married son and that the said married son did not occupy any other accommodation in the urban estate concerned and had neither vacated any residential accommodation there. The learned Appellate Authority declined this prayer of the landlord and thus, maintained the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, I am of the considered opinion, that it was a fit case where the proposed amendment sought for by the landlord, should have been allowed. In paragraph 3(ii) of the ejectment application, it has been stated inter alia that the elder son of the landlord Mahabir Parshad has been married two years back and, therefore, the landlord was in need of more accommodation. The statute governing the tenancy law applicable to the parties provides that a landlord is entitled to seek the ejectment of his tenant if the former bonafide requires the premises for his married son. This ground for eviction is independent of the ground where the landlord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. Since this fact was already mentioned in the ejectment application, the landlord was entitled to seek necessary amendment of his eviction application which is allowed on payment of Rs. 100/- as the costs.