RAM KUMAR Vs. DHARAM VIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Kumar petitioner is owner of the premises in dispute which consists of one room and a Khola at its back in Mohalla Pandhian, Darshani Gate, Ward No. 5, Jandiala Guru, which is in occupation of Dharambir respondent as a tenant at Rs. 3/- per month. On September 6, 1978, the petitioner filed an ejectment petition against the respondent on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, personal requirement and the premises having been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation as also its use for non-residential purposes by the respondent.

(2.) THE arrears of rent claimed by the Petitioner was tendered by the respondent on first date of hearing. The Rent Controller vide order dated April 16, 1980, upheld the plea of personal requirement set up by the petitioner. The remaining grounds for seeking ejectment of the respondent failed. The ejectment application was consequently allowed and the respondent was directed to vacate the premises. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which has been allowed by Appellate Authority vide order dated September 28, 1982, on the ground that the petitioner has one-sixth share in the house which at one time was owned by his father in Jandiala Guru and that he was in occupation of rooms adjacent to the premises in dispute which are otherwise owned by his wife. The order of the Rent Controller was set aside and ejectment application of the petitioner dismissed. It is against the order of Appellate Authority that the present revision has been directed.

(3.) THE petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute whereas two rooms adjacent thereto are owned by his wife. It is true that the petitioner would continue living with his wife though he cannot reside there in his own right. The two rooms owned by the wife of the petitioner are surely not sufficient for a reasonable living of the petitioner, his wife and four children. So far as the ancestral house is concerned, the owns one-sixth share therein as a result of the death of his father during the pendency of this litigation. The petitioner cannot reside in the entire ancestral house as a matter of right. At best he can seek partition of his own one sixth share therein. It has not been proved that the ancestral house has since been partitioned. This apart, the portion of the ancestral house which will represent one-sixth share of the petitioner would hardly be sufficient for his residence alongwith his family.