SHANTI PARKASH Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD-PETITIONERS (here in after referred to as the landlord) filed an ejectment application against the tenant respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) on the ground of nonpayment of rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month as rent from 1. 8. 1975 to 31. 3. 1979 and that the premises were required by the landlord bona fide for his own use and occupation. The landlord was living with his mother in one room with his wife and four children which was insufficient. That he had purchased the premises from Ruldu Singh and Mani Ram on 24. 2 1978. That a sum of Rs. 45/was being paid as rent by the tenant to the previous owners and that this fact finds mentioned in the said-deed Exhibit P-1. This petition was contested by the tenant. In the written statement he claimed that the monthly rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 20/- per month which as per his claim, he had paid to the previous owners for the period upto February 23, 1978. He agreed to tender rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month for the period after February 23,1978. The claim of the landlord about his bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation was also contested. On the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed:

(2.) AFTER recording evidence and hearing the parties, Rent Controller returned the finding that the rate of rent was Rs. 43/- per month and the tenant failed to tender the arrears of rent and, therefore, liable to be ejected. On issue No. 2, it was held that the premises were not required by the landlord for his own use and occupation, as alleged by him Because of the findings recorded by the Rent Controller under issue No. 1. the tenant was ordered to be ejected. Against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Landlord filed cross-objections under issue No. 2, with regard to occupation of the premises for his personal use. Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the trial Court under issue No. 1 and held that the landlord failed to establish that the rate of rent was Rs. 45/- per month. Cross-objections filed by the landlord under issue No. 2 regarding his bona fide need of the premises in dispute were dismissed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the order of the Courts below, the landlord has filed the present revision petition. The landlord has challenged the findings recorded by the Courts below on both the issues, i. e. issue Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the rate of rent as well as his personal need to occupy the premises.