JANKI DEVI Vs. CHITTER LEKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed on behalf of Janki Devi and others against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlords Chitter Lekha and others, sought the ejectment of the tenants Janki Devi and others, from the house, in dispute, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 35 per month and that they bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation. It was pleaded that at that time they were residing in a portion of the house No. 4848, Mochi Mandi, Ambala Cantt. consisting of one room only which was insufficient for their requirements. It was also pleaded that they had purchased the house, in question, on April 18, 1978 since there was no house with them to live comfortably. It was also averred that they had no other residential house in the urban area concerned, nor they had vacated any other residential building in the urban area concerned after the commencement of the rent law. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the respondents were the tenants under the applications at the rate of Rs. 12 per month and not at the rate of Rs. 35, as alleged. It was also pleaded that in the house, in dispute, another tenant was also residing. The allegations regarding the personal necessity of the landlords were denied. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlords must be satisfied with the accommodation with them in the tenanted house. Moreover, there was no reason why the landlords did not shift to the upper floor of the demised premises which was lying vacant in the year 1978 when they had purchased the same. Thus, the plea that the landlords bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation was negatived. However, on the question of the rate of rent, it was found that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 12 and not Rs. 35 per month, as claimed by the landlords. In view of these findings, the eviction application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the rate of rent of the demised premises. However, on the question of the bonafide requirement of the premises, in question, for the use and occupation of the landlords, it came to the conclusion that the accommodation with the landlords was insufficient for the requirements and, therefore, they bonafide needed the premises for their own use and occupation. Thus, the finding of the Rent Controller on this issue was reversed and the eviction order was passed against the tenants. Dissatisfied with the same, they have came up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar, I do not find any merit in this petition.