SURINDER PAL SINGH Vs. GEOLOGIST DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Pal Singh Bains petitioner purchased Hose No. 3058, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, from Davinder Singh Chahal vie sale-deed dated October 17, 1980. The house is in occupation of the Geologist (Director of Industries, Haryana) since before its purchase by the petitioner. On August 7, 1981, the petitioner filed a petition for the ejectment of the respondents on various grounds, namely, (1) non-payment of rent, (2) personal requirement, (3) change of user, and (4) the use of the premises in such manner which has materially impaired its value and utility. The arrears of rent etc. was paid on the first date of hearing. The Rent Controller vide order dated November 6, 1982 held that the grounds for ejectment of the respondents have not been proved and consequently dismissed the ejectment petition. The petitioner filed an appeal and the only ground pressed for the ejectment of the respondents was personal necessity. The Appellate Authority vide order dated June 6, 1983, held that the petitioner did not require the house for personal necessity and dismissed the appeal. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Maqsudan Singh, father and general attorney of the petitioner, has four sons. The petitioner has also his three brothers are living abroad. The petitioner is settled in England. The petitioner requires the house for the residence of his father who is living in Chandigarh as also for his sister who is not pulling on well with her husband. The Appellate Authority has held that it is not proved that the father and sister of the petitioner are dependent on him and as such they cannot be treated his family members in the context of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereafter the Act).

(3.) IT has been held in Jagdish Kumar Narula's case (supra) :