CHAMAN LAL SEHAL Vs. PREM NATH KALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but eviction order was passed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord Prem Nath sought the ejectment of his tenant Chaman Lal from the house in dispute in Jullundur inter alia on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. At the time of filing the ejectment application in September, 1981 it was alleged by the landlord that he was employed in Allahabad Bank at Jullundur and was likely to be transferred after completing his three years' tenure there; he was provided with Bank accommodation but the same was insufficient for the needs of his family which consisted of six children besides his wife living with him. It was further pleaded that two of his sons are doing cardboard business in one room of house situate in Kot Kishan Chand, Jullundur, belonging to the landlord. That house consisted of three small rooms out of which two are occupied by his old parents. In these circumstances the demised premises were required for his own use and occupation and for the members of his family. Another ground taken was that the tenant had demolished a latrine and bath room built on the first floor and converted the same into living room, which has diminished the value and utility of the demised premises. In the written statement the tenant denied the genuineness of landlord's personal necessity and of impairing the value and utility of the house. An objection was also raised that the boundaries of the demised premises were not shown correctly in the site plan filed alongwith the ejectment application and further that no plan of the accommodation in occupation of the landlord had been filed. Replication on behalf of the landlord was filed, wherein it was pleaded that complete details of the house in occupation of the landlord in Kot Kishan Chand have been mentioned in the petition and that satisfied the requirement of law.

(3.) IN appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the Rent Controller was wrong in holding that the accommodation under occupation of the landlord was sufficient. It was also observed that the learned Rent Controller did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter that what would happen to the official accommodation after his transfer. Thus the requirement of the landlord was found to be bonafide one. On the other ground also the learned Appellate authority found that :