DHAN RAJ Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE demised premises consist of two rooms, two verandahs, a bath room and the latrine on the first floor of the residential building. The other portion of the building is in occupation of the landlord himself. The ejectment of the tenant was sought primarily on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The family of the landlord included his married son, four daughters, his wife and the wife of his son and three children of his son. It was pleaded that the accommodation in their occupation was insufficient. He wanted to separate his son and his family and to settle them on the first floor and thus provide them separate accommodation. It was also pleaded that he was keeping the buffaloes and other cattle and had to store his agricultural produce in the premises. Apart from the said building, he was not in occupation of any other residential building in the urban area concerned; nor had vacated any. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the son of the landlord was residing separately from him and was not dependent upon him. Two of his daughters had been married and the Marvillage of his third daughter had been fixed for March 9, 1980. Under the circumstances, his requirement was not bonafide. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord required the premises bonafide for the residence of his son. As a result, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, he Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller, and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against him. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants had filed this revision petition in this Court.

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