DEVINDER MOHAN Vs. RAM PARKASH KALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but was dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE ejectment proceedings pertain to the residential house which comprises of a portion of the ground floor of the double storeyed building as shown in the site plan, Exhibit P. 2. The tenant is occupying the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/-. He was inducted thereon by the original landlord Om Parkash. The present landlord purchased the entire house vide sale deed dated October 19, 1981. He filed the ejectment application on November 17, 1981, primarily on the ground that the demised premises were required by him for his own use and occupation. It was averred in the application that he, his two brothers, mother and a sister owned and possessed a double storeyed house as described in the site plan, Exhibit A. 3. The actual portion of the above said house which was in occupation of the landlord was only a room on the ground floor of 10' X 10' dimensions. The remaining portion of the ground floor and the entire first floor of the said house were alleged to be in occupation of his brothers and other family members. The landlord's family consisted of his wife and three children. The accommodation in his possession was stated to be insufficient to meet his requirement. In the written statement, the tenant controverted the pleas raised by the landlord. He stated that he was occupying the demised premises as a tenant for the last 34 years. It was also averred that he was in possession of a portion of the ground floor. The remaining portion consisting of two rooms and one kitchen was in occupation of the landlord and that the accommodation already available with him was more than enough for his requirement. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that it was proved that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed in his favour. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and consequently, dismissed the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.