DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE demised premises are house No. 1580, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh. The said premises were let out to the Director, Languages, Haryana, at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,060/- excluding electricity and water charges. The ejectment application was filed on February 4, 1981 inter alia on the ground that the premises were required bonafide by the landlady for her own use and occupation. It was pleaded that she was not in occupation of any other residential building in the urban area concerned, nor had she vacated any building after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. At present, she was residing at Kharar with her son which accommodation was insufficient for her requirements. It was also pleaded that the demised premises were required by her and her husband for their use and occupation because inter alia, she was not enjoying a good health and wanted to live at Chandigarh where better medical facilities were available. In the written statement, the said allegations were denied. It was pleaded that the building was a non-residential one and could not be got vacated for the personal need and occupation of the landlady. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises in question, were required by the landlady for her own use and occupation bonafide. In view of that finding, the eviction order was passed in her favour. In view of that finding, the eviction order was passed in her favour. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order in favour of the landlady. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants have filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.