KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAUSHALYA Devi landlord-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') filed an application before the Rent Controller, Kaithal, for eviction of the tenant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') from the premises in dispute on the plea that she is the owner of the premises which are in occupation of the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 12/- on the ground of personal necessity. According to the landlord, she was also in occupation of the premises at Kaitnal belonging to her husband. As she was not on good terms with her husband, he had desired her to evict the same and, therefore, she wanted the premises in dispute for her personal occupation. She sought eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal necessity. Other grounds were also taken up but the same were not pressed before the Rent Controller and therefore, not' adjudicated upon by the Courts below and hence no reference is being made to the other grounds taken by the landlord

(2.) THE tenant in reply denied the allegations and alleged that the house where the landlord was living was ancestral and was not required to vacate the same and, therefore, she had no necessity to occupy the premises in dispute after evicting him.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :