OM PARKASH Vs. D N KALIA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The demised premises is a part of residential building comprised of two storeys. Whole of the first floor is under occupation of another tenant of the landlords while out of the ground- floor two of the rooms are in occupation of the landlords and the remaining portion is under the occupation of the tenant. The site plan of the building is Exhibit A.4. ; The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground that the landlords bona fide required the premises for their own use and occupation. It was pleaded that the landlord Shri D. N. Kalia was an officer of Reserve Bank of India and was to retire on 8-2-1982. The ejectment application was filed on 12-10-1981. It was stated that after his retirement he needs the demised premises for his self occupation. It was specifically pleaded that the tenant has constructed a Kothi type house No. 155, Ward No. 11 in the urban area of Gurdaspur and is enjoying the rent of the building. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the landlords do not require the house for their personal use and occupation. The landlord Shri D. N. Kalia is an officer of Reserve Bank of India posted at New Delhi and owns a big residential bungalow in Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The two landlords are living at Chandigarh and Bombay who have no intention to settle at Gurdaspur. The accommodation already in occupation of the landlord was sufficient for one family to live in. As regards the construction of the house by the tenant, it was admitted to the extent that the house of the tenant is yet incomplete and not worth living. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord does not need the house bona fide. According to the Rent Controller, the landlord has not stated that his relative and other owners are at and around Gurdaspur, and he had not disclosed as to how many members are with him who would occupy the house. The other pleas of the landlords were also negatived. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed.

(3.) In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Court below on the ground of personal requirement. It was held that the landlords claim had an element of need and as such they are entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. On this ground the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.