RAM LAL Vs. HARBHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition filed by the tenant arises out of the following facts:

(2.) RESPONDENT - landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed the ejectment petition against the tenant from House No. 4613 Gali Ghugan within the urban area of Municipal Committee, Fazilka. It was averred that the petitioner along with his two brothers were owners of the house in dispute and two other houses bearing No. 1542 and 1552, situated in Gali Bhagat Ram Monga, Tehsil Fazilka. Family settlement dated 27. 12. 1981 took place between the parties and the landlord became the exclusive owner of the House No. 4613. That the house in dispute was in occupation of the tenant at yearly rent of Rs. 500/- and that the tenant had not paid the rent w. e. f. 3. 6. 1975 till the date of filing of the application. The ejectment was sought on the following grounds :

(3.) BEFORE the Rent Controller, grounds (a) and (c) to (e) for ejectment were not passed by the learned counsel for the landlord at the time of arguments was that the landlord required the premises in dispute for his own as well as the occupation of his family members. Rent Controller decided the issue regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord against him. It was held that the family settlement had not been proved regarding partition. Issue No. 3 regarding rent was also decided against the landlord and in favour of the tenant. The petition for ejectment was ordered to be dismissed. Landlord filed an appeal against the order of the Recent Controller. No arguments were addressed on issue No. 1. No arguments were addressed on grounds (a), (d) and (e) for ejectment of the tenant before the Appellate Court. Before the Appellate Court grounds (b) and (c) were pressed. Both these grounds were accepted by the appellate authority. It was held that the landlord required the premises for his bona fide use and occupation and that the tenant was guilty of causing material and structural alterations in the demised premises. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and order of ejectment was passed against the tenant.