MOTI RAM Vs. PREM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Authorities below whereby ejectment petition filed by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity was allowed and the tenant was ordered to be ejected.

(2.) LANDLORD-RESPONDENT filed a petition for ejectment against his tenant on the ground of arrears of rent, building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as well as on the ground of personal necessity. As far as arrears of rent were concerned, the same were tendered on the first date of hearing and therefore, the first ground was not pressed. The landlord failed to prove the second ground, i. e. building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and therefore, it was held by both the authorities below that the building had not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As far as the third ground, i. e. landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation, was concerned, both the Authorities below found that landlord alongwith his wife, two sons and a daughter were in possession of only one room and therefore, it was held that accommodation in their possession was not sufficient for their requirement. Finding that the room in occupation of the tenant was bona fide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation, the Authorities below ordered ejectment of the tenant from the premises. This order is now being impugned by the tenant in the present revision petition.

(3.) BEFORE me, learned counsel for the tenant (petitioner herein) has contended that the landlord (respondent herein) has not been able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore, the petition filed by the landlord was not competent. He has also contended that landlord has failed to prove the ground of personal necessity. I am afraid to accept both these contentions. As far as the first contention is concerned, connsel for the tenant before the Rent Controller conceded that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In view of this concession of counsel for the tenant before the Rent Controller, the tenant now cannot be permitted to reagitate the same in this revision petition, particularly when this point was not at all raised before the appellate Authority. On the second ground, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has referred to Exh. R-l, copy of order 14-6-84 passed by the Rent Controller vide which petition filed by the father of the respondent landlord was dismissed. From this he wanted me to infer that once it was held that the premises were not required, by the father of the respondent for his son who is landlord on the basis of purchase from his father, the landlord does not require the premises for his own use and for his family. The said petition was decided as far back as in 1984. The present ejectment petition was filed in the year 1987 and the same was decided by the Rent Controller on 12-4-1991. On the date when the Rent Controller decided the petition, he found that the family of the landlord is quite big and one room in his possession is not sufficient for his requirement. Keeping in view the size of the family of the landlord and the accommodation in his occupation, the authorities below rightly found that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that how this finding is incorrect on the facts found by the authorities below.