JOGINDER PAL Vs. K.C. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlords sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant on the ground that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide. The learned Rent Controller found that the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, the Act) had not been impleaded. Therefore, the eviction application was liable to be dismissed. The eviction application was dismissed inter alia on the ground that otherwise also the landlords had failed to prove their bonafide requirement. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, they have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that even if these two ingredients have been proved, even then, the landlords have failed to prove their bonafide requirement and since earlier the two authorities below have found as a fact that the requirement of the landlords was not bonafide, the same being a finding of fact could not be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this contention, reference was made to M/s Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, 1981(1) RCR 559 : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253 and Lal Chand Chopra v. M/s Oswal Store, 1983(1) All India Rent Control Journal 73.