ARJAN SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision and is directed against the order of the appellate Authority affirming the order of the Rent Controller allowing the landlord's petition for eviction of the tenant. The premises were evacuee property and the tenant was inducted into them by the Custodian at a rental of Rs. 35/- per mensem. These premises were later on sold by the Custodian by public auction and were purchased by the respondent. The tenant attorned to the respondent and thereafter the relationship of landlord and tenant came into being and on this question there is no dispute. The landlord applied for eviction of the tenant on a number of grounds but we are here only concerned with one, namely, that the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his personal residence and the residence of his family members. This plea prevailed with the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller accordingly allowed the petition and ordered the eviction of the tenant. An appeal against this decision was taken to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller on a different ground, namely, that the tender of the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing was not proper. The Rent Controller had ordered the eviction on the ground that the premises were required by the landlord bona fide but the Appellate Authority held that the landlord did not need the premises bona fide for his own residence or for the residence of his family members. It is against this decision that the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the ground on which the decision has gone against the tenant, is erroneous in law and in support thereof he has relied on Mam Chand V/s. Chhotu Ram and others, 1964 66 PunLR 93and Khushi Ram V/s. Shanti Rani and others,1964 PunLR 755. Both these decisions support his contention. The tenant was sending the money orders to the landlord for rent. These money orders were not being received by the agent of the landlord. In this situation the tenant deposited the rent with the Court under Section 35 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. When the petition was filed he deposited the arrears of rent and prayed that the rent deposited in Court under Section 35 be also taken into account. If the rent paid under Section 35 is taken into account, the tenant would have complied with the provisions of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . Therefore, on this ground the tenant would have succeeded.

(3.) In this situation Mr. Sibal, who appears for the landlord raised a contention that the Appellate Authority's finding that the landlord did not require the premises bona fide for his personal use is erroneous inasmuch as that finding is not based on evidence but on more conjectures.