RAM PARSHAD Vs. JAWALA PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) LANDLORD -respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant") from House No. 510, Lalkurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt on two grounds i. e. (i) that the tenant was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and the same is due to the landlord for the period from 1. 10. 1979 to 31. 3. 1982 amounting to Rs. 600/- and (ii) that the tenancy premises were required by the landlord bona fide for his residence and for the residence of his family members. It was averred in the pleadings that the landlord was residing in House No. 506 Lalkurti bazar, Ambala Cantt. with his mother as licensee ; that the present accommodation consisted of only one room which was not sufficient for his requirement as the family of the landlord consisted of his wife, one married, son, wife and three children of the married son. Tenant after service of notice entered appearance and contested the ejectment petition. Arrears of rent were tendered under protest. It was stated that the rent had already been paid but the tender was being made to avoid the ejectment. On merits, it was denied that he was a tenant under the landlord in the premises in question. As regards the ground of personal necessity, it was pleaded that the landlord was living in House No. 506 in his capacity as owner that the said house consisted of four rooms besides allied amenities such as kitchen, bath rooms etc. and that two more new rooms have been raised by the landlord en the first floor of the said house; that the mother of the landlord was an old lady; that the wife of the landlord had died after the filing of the petition. It was alleged that the landlord had another house on the back of the property in dispute which he was letting out to various tenants from time to time. It was denied that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation ; that the petition for ejectment has been filed with a male fide intention so as to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent.

(3.) RENT Controller came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and that the landlord required the premises in dispute for his own occupation. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the landlord. Issue No. 3 was not pressed and on issue No. 4, no evidence was led regarding double payment. Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute. Tenant carried an appeal against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Appellate Authority confirmed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Under these circumstances, the present revision petition has been filed by the tenant challenging his eviction form the premises in dispute.