RAJ KUMARI ALIAS RAJ WANTI Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1168 of 1981 and 1345 as the house involved is common in both the cases.

(2.) LANDLORD Sadhu Ram sought the ejectment of his tenants Shrimati Raj Kumari and Siri Ram, who are in occupation of one room each in House No. 1534 situated in Tota Beldar Mandi, Ambala Cantt. The ejectment was sought by the landlord primarily on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The other ingredients were also pleaded. The tenants in their written statements denied the requirements of the landlord and alleged that he actually wanted to increase the rent. On trial the learned Rent Controller found in both the cases that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, eviction orders were passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction orders. Dissatisfied with the same, both the tenants have filed two petitions in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two Authorities, below. On the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concluded that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It has also been found that at present the landlord was living only in one room besides a store and that he had grown up children consisting four sons and a daughters. Thus the present accommodation in his occupation was obviously insufficient.