R.K. JAIRATH Vs. K.S. SINGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) ORIGINALLY one Shrimati Savitri Wadera was the owner of the house No. 8, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh. The tenant Shri K.S. Singla, was inducted by her on the first floor of the said house. She sold the house, in September, 1978, to the present landlord, i.e. Capt. R.K. Jairath, his brother Vinesh K. Jairath and their mother Mrs. Bimla Jairath. The tenant, therefore, started paying rent to the present landlords at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. Later on, the rent was increased to Rs. 575 per month on February 5, 1980. At present, he was paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 600 per month. In the ejectment application, it was pleaded that the premises in question, i.e. the first floor of the house, were required by Capt. R.K. Jairath for his use and occupation and also for his family as he was going to marry in April, 1983. The ejectment application was filed on January 3, 1983. It was further pleaded that he was serving in the advance area in the Army as a Capt. and that his would be wife was a Graduate who would seek admission in Post Graduate Classes in Chandigarh and, therefore, he bonafide required the premises. It was also pleaded that the father of the petitioner was owning house No. 700, Sector 8, Chandigarh and after the marriage of the petitioner, separate accommodation on the first floor of house No. 8, Sector 16-A, was his bonafide need. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that though Capt. R.K. Jairath was one of the co-sharers of the premises, in dispute, yet did not require the same for his personal use and occupation. According to the tenant, petitioner No. 3, i.e. Mrs. Bimla Jairath had been pressing him to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month with effect from August 1, 1982 with 25 per cent increase therein every year, through her husband M.L. Jairath. Since he did not accede to this demand, the present petition had been filed with mala fide intention. The learned Rent Controller found that the petition for ejectment for the requirement of petitioner No. 1 was not bonafide. Consequently, the same was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order dismissing the eviction application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.