VIJAY KUMAR KAPOOR Vs. PISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1983 as both the petitions arise out of one judgment of the appellate authority dated June 7, 1983.

(2.) THE premises in dispute is House No. 145, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh measuring 10 Marlas. The landlords P.L. Sethi and his wife Lilawanti Sethi were already occupying as tenants on the grounds floor of the said house whereas the first floor consisting of 4 rooms and the second floor Barasati consisting of 2 rooms was with other tenants. The landlords purchased the sad house from the original owner on June 26, 1980. In order to eject their 4 tenants, two on the first floor occupying 2 rooms each and two on the second floor occupying one room each, four ejectment petitions were filed simultaneously in the Court of Rent Controller. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the landlords bonafide require the premises for their own use and occupation as the present accommodation in their occupation was insufficient to meet their requirements. Their family consisted of 4 sons and 4 daughters. Out of 4 sons two are already married whereas out of 4 daughters, 3 daughters have already been married. The learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application against Sham Lal tenant whereas the three other applications were dismissed. Thus four appeals were filed before the appellate authority which were disposed of by one judgment dated June 7, 1983. By virtue of the said judgment, the appeal filed by Sham Lal tenant was dismissed whereas the three appeals filed by the landlord were accepted and eviction orders were passed against those tenants. Dissatisfied with the same, Vijay Kumar tenant on the first floor has filed C.R. No. 2013 and whereas Ramesh Chander another tenant on the first floor has filed C.R. No. 2014 of 1983.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the firm findings of the appellate authority. Admittedly, the family of the landlord was consisting of 4 sons and 4 daughters. Out of the four sons 2, have already been married and are living in the house in dispute. Thus taking into consideration the number of the family members and the fact that two sons already married, it could not be successfully argued that the requirement of the landlord increased. Simply because, he was having 4 rooms in the house in dispute as tenant earlier and now he had also got rooms on the second floor was itself not sufficient to hold that their requirement was not bonafide.