KARAM CHAND DOGRA Vs. SHRI D.C. SHARDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlords is the owner of house No.3226, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh. Two rooms, one kitchen and a latrine on the left side while entering the said house, on the ground floor, were let out to the tenant by the landlord in February, 1972. The landlord is also residing in the ground floor in a separate portion of the house. He sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of his bonafide requirement. According to him, the accommodation in his occupation which consisted of three rooms on the ground floor was insufficient to meet his requirement. His family consisted of himself, his wife and two sons, one of whom was married and had children, and the other had been married during the pendency of the petition. It was also pleaded that another room without a toilet on the ground floor was also in his occupation which was being used as a store. His elder son was working in the P.G.I. and his wife was employed in the P.W.D. Haryana, Chandigarh. His other son was working in the Meters and Instruments Factory, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. He was himself a retired Superintendent from the Punjab Civil Secretariat. Earlier,he had been residing in Government accommodation, but at the verge of his retirement, he shifted to his own house therefrom in the year 1978. The application was contested by the tenant inter alia on the ground that the ejectment application moved by the landlord was motivated with mala fide intention to seek enhancement of rent. It was denied that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his use and occupation. According to the tenant, the landlord constructed a set of four rooms, store, kitchen, bath room and latrine on the right side of the first floor of the house and instead of occupying the same, he let it out to the State Bank of India with effect from April/May, 1977, at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month for the residence of its manager. In the application filed on behalf of the landlord, it was pleaded that his son Digvijay was a patient of epilepsy and the accommodation on the first floor was not suitable for his family. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the need of the landlord was bonafide and consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition.