DINESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SHIV KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE demised premises consists of two rooms, one combined latrine, bath and one verandah on the first floor of House No. 10, Sector 3, Chandigarh. In the year 1976, the whole first floor was rented out to the tenant on the tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 350. Later on, according to the landlord, the tenant surrendered two rooms, one combined latrine, bath and one verandah on July 1, 1980 and, thus, the rent was reduced to Rs. 200 per month excluding water and electricity charges. Admittedly, the landlord and the tenant are closely related to each other. The ejectment of the tenant was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation and that the present accommodation with him was not sufficient for his requirement. In the written statement, the tenant denied that he had surrendered any part of the demised premises as alleged. According to the tenant, the landlord approached him in the month of July, 1980 and said that he needed two rooms and toilet for two weeks as his daughter was to appear in certain examination. Therefore, it was on that account that the tenant handed over the possession of the part of the demised premises to him for a couple of weeks. Thus, according to the tenant he never surrendered a part of the premises, as alleged. It was also denied that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The other pleas raised on behalf of the landlord were also negatived. Consequently the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The other findings arrived at by the Rent Controller were affirmed. In view of the said finding, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.