M C VERMA Vs. S K DHAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision-petition has been filed by the landlord (here-in-after referred to as the landlord) against the tenant-respondent (here-in-after referred to as the tenant ). Landlord sought the eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban (Rent Restriction) Act, 1945 (here-in-after referred to as the Act), from the demised premises consisting of the ground-floor of one kanal House No. 637 Sector 11-B, Chandigarh, on the grounds of personal use and occupation and that of his married son Rakesh Verma. The landlord himself resides in House No. 638 Sector 11-B, Chandigarh alongwith his wife, his unmarried sister, his son Rakesh Verma along with his wife and two sons. Another son Ratish Verma who was unmarried at the time of the filing of the petition was living with the landlord. A separate application was filed in the court bringing on record additional fact that after the filing of the ejectment petition, Ratish Verma was married on 28. 4. 1986. It has further been alleged that a daughter has born to him. The accommodation in occupation of the landlord admittedly in house No. 638 Sector 11-B, Chandigarh comprises of six bed rooms (three on the ground floor and three On the first floor) along with drawing room, dinning hall and kitchen on each floor. The petition for ejectment was filed with the plea that the accommodation in the double storeyed one Kanal House No. 638 was not sufficient to meet their requirements, on the ground that there are three separate family units living in House No. 638 which was not sufficient for three units.

(2.) IT has further been averred that tenant owns one kanal house in Panchkula which he refuses to occupy for his own use.

(3.) THE tenant in the written statement filed, controverted the claim made in the petition. It has been stated in the written statement that married son Rakesh Verma and unmarried sister of the landlord are residing in the adjoining house No. 638 that Ratish Verma, second son of the landlord is residing at Panchkula and is running his business there, that initially the rent of the tenanted premises was fixed at Rs. 600/- which was to be increased to Rs. 1100/- per month; that the landlord was pressing the tenant for further increase of the rent to which the tenant did not agree and for that reason, the petition for ejectment was filed. Replication to the written statement was filed controverting all the pleas, taken in the written statement.