BABU RAM Vs. HEM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 364 and 2266 of 1983 and 1523 of 1984, as the question involved is common in all these cases.

(2.) HEM Chand, landlord, sought the ejectment of his four tenants from the house, in dispute, which was in their possession. The eviction application against one of the tenants. Roop Chand, was allowed by the Rent Controller, but was disallowed in appeal. The landlord being aggrieved against the same, has filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2266 of 1983. As regards, the eviction petition against Mittar Sen, one of the tenants, the Rent Controller dismissed the same on April 4, 1983. The appeal filed against the same on behalf of the landlord was dismissed on July 14, 1984. It has been stated at the bar that the landlord has not filed any revision against the said order of the Appellate Authority. On the last date of hearing, the case was adjourned to find out the possibility of a compromise, if any, between the parties. However, no compromise as such appears to be possible.

(3.) LANDLORD Hem Chand sought the ejectment of his tenants Babu Ram and Satish Kumar from the premises, in question, inter alia on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his personal use and occupation. According to the landlord, he retired from service in October, 1979, at Delhi where he had been residing earlier. He did not own any house at Delhi and was in occupation of rented premises consisting of two rooms and a kitchen there. The present eviction applications were filed in March/April, 1981. They were contested mainly on the ground that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide as he had absolutely no intention to shift to Karnal because his two sons were residing at Delhi. Besides, even the two rooms which were lying vacant in the building, in question, had not been occupied by the landlord so far. According to the tenants, if the requirement of the landlord was bonafide then he should have occupied the said two rooms already lying vacant in the building. Having failed to occupy the same, it could not be held that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide. According to the learned counsel for the tenants, it was a mere wish of the landlord and not his genuine need on the basis of which he could seek the ejectment of his tenants. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Jagat Ram v. Mathra Dass, 1978 (2) Rent Control Reporter 351; Rattan Chand Jain v. Charan Singh, 1978 (1) Rent Control Reporter 265 and Inder Sain v. Gain Chand, 1981 (1) Rent Control Reporter 25.