ROMESH RANI ANAND Vs. MOHAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 3034 of 1982 and No. 3378 of 1982 which are directed against the same order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated May 13, 1982.

(2.) ROMESH Rani Anand petitioner in Civil Revision No. 3034 of 1984 purchased house No. EJ 241, Chahar Bagh, Jullundur on February 10, 1976. Mohan Lal Gupta respondent occupied this house as a tenant at Rs. 115 per month since before its purchase by the petitioner. A part of the house was occupied by Mulkh Raj, father-in-law of the petitioner. Mulkh Raj paid Rs. 57.50 per month to Mohan Lal Gupta respondent, who in turn paid Rs. 115 per month to the previous owner. On August 10, 1976 the petitioner filed an ejectment petition against the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 200 per month from the date of purchase (February 10, 1976) and for personal requirement. The respondent tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 115 per month. The Rent Controller vide order dated February 15, 1980, held that the respondent was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 115 per month and as such the tender of the rent made was valid. The plea of personal requirement of the house by the petitioner was not upheld on the ground that essential ingredients of Section 13(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act had not been pleaded on the ejectment application. The ejectment application was consequently dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal. She was allowed to make amendment in the ejectment petition pleading essential ingredients of Section 13(iii) of the said Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated May 13, 1982, holding that the respondent was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 115 per month and further the petitioner did not bonafide require the premises for her use and occupation. It is against this order that revision petition No. 3034 of 1982 has been filed by Romesh Rani Anand and C.R. No. 3378 of 1982 by Mohan Lal Gupta.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner would get himself transferred or seek fresh appointment as a teacher at Jullundur after the house in dispute is vacated. The contention is without merit. The petitioner and her husband both are employed at Ludhiana. They are residing at the Ludhiana for the last about 15 years. The plea of the petitioner that she would seek fresh appointment as a teacher at Jullundur after the house in dispute is vacated does not appear to be genuine or bonafide. It is just an excuse to get the house vacated.