PARTAP CHAND Vs. MANGAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Partap Chand landlord sought the eviction of his tenant Mangat Rai from the house in dispute inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent and that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. These allegations were controverted on behalf of the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing and therefore, this ground was no more available. However, on the ground of bonafide requirement, it was found that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide, as the climate of Sundernagar where he is living at present did not suit his wife. As a result of this finding, eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reserved the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that since no medical evidence was produced on behalf of the landlord to show that the climate of Sundernagar did not suit his wife, the requirement of the landlord could not be held to be bonafide one. As a result of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation, but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily without appreciating the evidence.