(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.
(2.) AJAY Kumar, landlord purchased the building in dispute from its earlier owner Suraj Bhan vide sale deeds dated 15.2.1977 and 4.4.1977, for a total sum of Rs. 47,000/-. The said Suraj Bhan had initially inducted on 1-1-1965 the respondents as tenant in the portion in dispute of the said house, which consisted of three Chaubaras, one courtyard, one kitchen and one bath room on the first floor at a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-. On 21.5.1979. Ajay Kumar landlord, who was unmarried, filed an ejectment application against the tenant-respondents inter-alia on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was further alleged that he was not in occupation of any residential building in the urban area of Barnala, nor had he vacated any such premises without sufficient cause after the enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The tenants denied that the landlord had any bonafide personal requirement in respect of the premises in question, or was not in occupation of any other residential house in the urban area concerned. According to the respondents, the landlord was not only in occupation of the ground floor portion for his residence of the building in dispute, but he was also in occupation as joint owner with the father of another residential building at Barnala. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord was not in occupation of any other residential building in the urban area concerned, nor did he vacate any such residential building without any reasonable cause. Thus, the requirement of the landlord was held to be bonafide. Consequently, eviction order was passed against the respondents.
(3.) PENDING the revision petition, the landlord filed an affidavit dated 28.5.1984, to bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent events. It was stated therein that his marriage had taken place on 4.5.1984 and after the same, his wife is living with him in other house of his father where both of them are living with great difficulty because the accommodation in the said house is insufficient. It has been further stated that the said house belongs to his father and that the accommodation therein, for the whole family of his father, consisting of his father, his mother, his married elder brother and his wife and their minor daughter, is hardly sufficient for the members of the family. Krishan Kumar tenant also filed his affidavit dated 19.7.1984, in reply thereto. The factum of the marriage of the landlord is not denied. However, it was stated therein that the house in which the petitioner is living his father and brother is also ancestral property and consists of six rooms, 2 kitchens, 2 toilets on the first floor and 2 rooms one verandah and one toilet on the second floor and that two rooms on the first floor have been constructed and added in February, 1984.