RAM BHAGAT Vs. KULWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord-Kulwant Rai, sought the ejectment of his tenant Ram Bhagat from the premises in dispute, consisting of two rooms, bath-room, deori, courtyard on the ground floor and two rooms and kitchen on the first floor, situated in Khanna, inter alia, on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The application was contested on the ground that the ejectment application has been filed with the purpose of enhancing the rent and that the landlord did not require the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller negatived the plea of the landlord and thus dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that when the accommodation in possession of the landlord was not sufficient for his two grown up children and wife, the need to the landlord to shift to his own house at Khanna from Ludhiana, seems to be quite bonafide and genuine. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. In the ejectment application the plea taken by the landlord was that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation because the present accommodation in this occupation was insufficient. Thus, under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the lower Appellate Authority as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.