ISHWAR CHANDER AND ORS. Vs. RAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlords' petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller but dismissed, in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Smt. Manohar Kaur, widow of Sohan Singh, was the owner of the building in which the premises in dispute are vacated and the same rented out by her @ Rs. 3 p.m. vide rent note dated 9th December, 1965. She sold the said property to Ishwar Chander, Surinder Kumar, Subhash Chander and Ashok Kumar, sons of Shri Hukam Chand, vide sale deed dated 15th February, 1976. Thus, the said vendees became the landlords qua the tenant-respondent Ram Dass. The said landlords were also in occupation of the part of the said building as tenants under the previous owner Smt. Manohar Kaur. They filed the present application for ejectment on 27th September, 1977, inter alia, on the ground that the bonafide required the premises in occupation of the tenant which consist of one big room, small room, bath room, kitchen and latrine, on the ground floor. It was pleaded that the landlords are occupying portion of the same house on the first floor consisting of three rooms which was insufficient for their need. In addition thereto, it was alleged that the father of the landlords has a large family consisting of 11 members and the accommodation in their possession was most inadequate. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, these allegations were controverted and it was pleaded that since the landlords wanted to enhance the rent, they filed the ejectment application. The bonafide requirement of the landlord was denied. On trial the Rent Controller found that the landlords do not have any independent house of their own at Kapurthala, their father is also living in a small house which is a rented accommodation; the landlord Ishwar Chander is living in a rented house and his landlord is also asking him to vacate the premises; thus, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide. In view of this finding, the eviction was ordered. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding and as a result of thereof the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlords was bonafide but the reversal of this finding by the learned Appellate Authority was arbitrary and whimsical and against the evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the Appellate Authority is based on surmises and conjectures.