PRABHU DAYAL Vs. HARDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's civil revision directed against the orders of the Authorities below ordering ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Har Devi and her son, Madan Lal, (respondents herein) let out the premises to the petitioner. The demised premises consist of only one room. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent, nuisance to the neighbours, change of user and on the ground of personal necessity. The first three grounds, i. e. non-payment of rent, nuisance to the neighbours and change of user do not survive any longer. The Rent Controller, on finding that the respondents require the premises for their own use and occupation, ordered ejectment of the petitioner. On appeal, the order of the Rent Controller was affirmed. This is How, the tenant has come in" revision before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and the case requires to be remanded to the appellate. Authority for re-determination. According to him the tenant on 2. 12. 1988, made an application for taking notice of subsequent events like that during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate Authority, two rooms had fallen vacant and the respondents instead of occupying those rooms, let out the same to some other tenant. He also contended that another application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for production of additional evidence, was ordered to be heard along with the appeal, but at the time of deciding the appeal, the appellate Authority has not passed any order on that application. For this proposition, the counsel placed reliance upon a judgment reported as Jagir Kaur v. Nirmal Singh (1993-2) 104 P. L. R. 374.