KANSHI RAM Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below. The landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant from the house in dispute No. 668-669 situated in Mohalla Lower Kurari, Kalka, primarily on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own and family members need and use and occupation and for the occupation of his son, who is married. It was further pleaded that at present the landlord was residing as a licensee in the house of Shri Harish Soni and Satish Soni sons of Dr. Parma Nand Soni of Kalka. It was pleaded that the landlord is not occupying any other residential premises in the urban area concerned nor has he vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that it was incorrect that the land-lord alongwith his family members and the married son required the tenancy premises for his personal use and occupation. It was not specifically denied that at present, the landlord was residing as a licensee in the house of Shri Harish Soni etc. as alleged in the application. It was also pleaded in the ejectment application that the landlord was earlier a tenant under Smt. Tara Rani who filed an application for ejectment which was allowed by the Rent Controller on January 19, 1974 and which order was maintained in appeal in the year 1978. As a result of that eviction order, the present landlord was evicted from those tenanted premises and since then he had no other accommodation with him in the urban area of Kalka in which he could live with his large family members which consists of six sons and four daughters. The present ejectment application was filed on October 5, 1978.

(2.) AFTER the present landlord was ejected from the tenanted premises, certain other premises were taken on rent by his son - Ram Dhan and he was living with him in those premises with his permission as licensee.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is an apparent error in the judgment of the appellate authority because according to the appellate authority, the landlord did not step into the witness box to assert his requirement or need, whereas the landlord has appeared in the witness box as A.W. 4. Thus argued, the learned counsel, the finding of the appellate authority is vitiated on this ground alone. Apart from that, it was contended that after the landlord was ejected from the rented premises, he had no option but to take some premises for his occupation which according to him were taken on rent by his son Ram Dhan. Thus argued, the learned counsel that since the landlord was residing with him as a licensee, the said accommodation could not stand in his way as he was not occupying any premises in his own right. Moreover, those premises were taken on rent since there was no other alternative and therefore, on that ground also, the occupation of those premises could not stand in the way of the landlord to seek ejectment of his tenant.