GIRDHARI LAL Vs. SIRI KRISHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition against whom the order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlords sought ejectment of their tenant from the premises in dispute which consists of a house, inter alia, on the ground that the premises were required for use and occupation of Hari Charan, landlord. In paragraph 4 of the eviction application, it was pleaded that Hari Charan needed the house in dispute for his own use and occupation and that he had no other accommodation in the urban area concerned, i.e. in the city of Bhiwani. The application was contested, alleging that the landlords were living in Delhi where they were doing their business and that they did not bona fide require the premises for their own use and occupation. Certain other objections were also taken. However, the learned Rent Controller found that Hari Charan landlord required the premises in question for his own use and occupation. The other pleas of the tenant were negatived. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against him In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus, maintained the ejectment order passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has fined this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. It was pleaded in the ejectment application that the house in dispute was required for the use and occupation of Hari Charan, landlord There was no requirement that the landlord must plead as to why he wanted to occupy that house, while he was already living in village Kosli. However evidence has been led by the landlords It has been stated by Hari Charan (A.W. -2) that at present, he was living in village Kosli where he was running cloth business, but he wanted to shift his family to Bhiwani, though he would continue to do his business in village Kosli after shifting his family to Bhiwani and he would become a daily passenger to village Kosli. He has further stated that he has six children and a wife and that be is living only in one room in village Kosli. He has no other house in Bhiwani City where the tenancy premises are situated, which consist of 4 rooms. This evidence has been believed by both the authorities below. It has been found that the requirement of the landlords was bona fide one. It was held in Sri Raja Lakshi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253, that a concurrent finding based on evidence, that the landlord did not bona fide require the premises for his own use and occupation is a finding which cannot be touched by the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. In the present Court, as observed earlier it has been found that the landlords bona fide require the premises for their own use and occupation. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said findings as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently the revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant -petitioner is allowed two months time to vacate the premises in question, provided all the arrears of rent, if any and advance rent for 2 months, are deposited with the Rent Controller, within a fortnight.