CHARANJI LAL Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition against the order dated 28th October, 1991, passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala, whereby the ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground that the premises in dispute were required by the landlord for the residence of his married son.

(2.) THE facts of the case, relevant to its disposal, are as under:the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on the ground-floor of a residential house situated in Nabha at a monthly rent of Rs. 170/ -. The respondent sought the ejectment of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the residential house was needed for the separate residence of his married son, Baljit Singh. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application holding that the bonafide necessity of the married son was not proved. The judgment was reversed in appeal and on a re-consideration of the evidence, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that as Baljit Singh, the son of the landlord was employed in a factory at Nabha and was required to come to duty from his present place of residence in the house of his father in village Kalha Maira, not only was it inconvenient to do so but the accomodation in possession of the father was insufficient for meeting the needs of his extended family. The Appellate Authority was largely influenced by the unrebutted evidence of Shri S. K. Sial, a Manager in the HMM Ltd. , Nabha, factory, which was recorded as additional evidence on application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. , who stated that Baljit Singh was a confirmed employee of the factory and that he had been employed on a regular basis on 28th June, 1990 and confirmed on his appointment on 1st October, 1990, but prior thereto had been working on temporary basis with breaks. The Appellate Authority also formed the opinion that in view of the disturbed conditions in the State, it was required that Baljit Singh have his own residence close to his place of work. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the tenant has come up in this revision petition.

(3.) MR. R. K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two basic points; firstly, that the benefit of Section 13 (3) (a) (iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), could not be given to a landlord who sought eviction of a tenant on the ground of the requirement of his married son, if such married son had vacated any residential building without sufficient cause in an urban area after the commencement of the Act, and; secondly, that if any case, there was no conclusive evidence to show that on the 1st March, 1989, i. e. when the present ejectment application was filed, Balbir Singh aforesaid, was, in fact, employed in the factory in question.