MATHRA DASS Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but was dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord -petitioner, Mathra Dass, sought the ejectment of his tenant Kewal Krishan, Respondent, from the residential house, indisputs, situated in the urban area of Baruala, inter alia ON the ground that he bonafide required the tame for his own use and occupation. It was alto pleaded that except the two chaubaras which he was occupying for the time being, there was no ether accommodation with aim and that the said accommodation was insufficient for his purpose as hit family consisted of himself, six childrens , hii wife and his mother, besides the two married daughters. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondent, he controverted the allegations made in the eviction application On trial, the Rent Controller found that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation It was also found that the accommodation already in his occupation was insufficient to meet the requirement of his family. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reverted the said finding of the Rent Controller as it was found that the landlord had no bonafide requirement in respect of the demised premises. As a result, the eviction order patted by the Rent Controller was set aside and the eviction application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the learned Rent Controller, after discussing the entire evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation, but the said finding has been reversed by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily end whimsically. Thus, argued the Learned Counsel, the finding of the Appellate Authority is vitiated.