GURDIAL SINGH Vs. RAVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) GURDIAL Singh and Tejinder Singh, landlords, filed the eviction petition against the tenant Mohan Singh for eviction from the demised premises which consisted of two rooms, one kitchen and a bath room, a part of a residential building. Mohan Singh tenant died during the pendency of the ejectment application and was represented by his widow Ravinder Kaur and others. The ejectment from the demised premises was sought primarily on the ground that the landlords bonafide required the premises, in dispute, for their own use and occupation. It was pleaded that Gurdial Singh, landlord had shifted his residence from Patiala to Dhuri where the demised premises are situated, as his mother was an old lady and did not keep a good health. According to this landlord, he had taken on rent a room in the house belonging to Kuldip Kaur at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- and that at present he was living there. It was also pleaded that two rooms and one kitchen out of the house, in dispute, were in their possession, but that accommodation was not at all sufficient to accommodate the family members of Gurdial Singh, landlord. It was also pleaded that the landlords did not possess or occupy any other residential building, nor had they vacated any such building in the urban area concerned. The allegations made in the eviction application were controverted. It was pleaded that Gurdial Singh landlord, was employed at Patiala and was living there along with his family. Thus, the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlords bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation. As a result, the eviction order was passed in their favour. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the desire expressed by Gurdial Singh, landlord, to occupy the premises, in question, was not bonafide. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed against the tenant was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same the landlords have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record as well as the additional affidavit filed in this Court on behalf of Gurdial Singh, landlord I am of the considered opinion that the requirement of the landlord is a bonafide one. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the landlords required the demised premises for their own use and occupation, but the said finding has been reversed arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures by the Appellate Authority and, thus, the finding arrived at by it is vitiated.