FATEH CHAND Vs. KUNDAL MAL SARDA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord Kundan Mal Sarda, purchased the residential building on February 20, 1973, a portion of which consisting of two rooms was on rent with the tenant. The remaining portion of the building was also on rent with another tenant. The ejectment application was filed on September 17, 1980, inter alia on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own use and occupation. It was alleged that the landlord was running a business in Sikkim. Since there was unrest and law and order problem in Sikkim, he wanted to shift to his native place Hissar - It was also pleaded that the landlord was not occupying any other residential building at Hissar, nor he had vacated any. The arrears of rent were claimed at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month with effect from March 1, 1973 to July 31, 1980. In reply, the tenant denied the bonafide requirement of the landlord. It was pleaded that he was occupying the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- plus house-tax, and not at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month, as alleged. The other allegations were also controverted. However, the arrears of rent for the said period were deposited on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs. 30/- per month and not Rs. 60/- per month as claimed by the landlord. Since the arrears of rent were paid at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month on the first date of hearing, no ejectment of the tenant could be ordered on the ground of non-payment of the arrears of rent. On the question of the bonafide requirement of the demised premises by the landlord, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had miserably failed to prove his need of the accommodation, in question. As a result, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, only the finding of the Rent controller as to the bonafide requirement of the landlord was contested. The learned Appellate Authority after going through the entire evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence of the record and the pleadings of the parties, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the firm findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.