SURAIN SINGH Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the order of ejectment from the house in dispute passed by the Appellate Authority dated March 1, 1975. Amar Nath, the landlord, filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) for ejectment of the petitioner from the house in dispute on two grounds that he was at the moment residing in the house belonging to his father, but because of strained relations between them the father was compelling him to vacate the house and he required the house in dispute for his own occupation and that the tenant has sublet the house to Karnail Singh, respondent 2, without his consent. The arrears of rent was also pleaded as one of the grounds for seeking ejectment, but the same having been paid on the first date of hearing, that question did not survive thereafter. Both the respondents filed separate replies controverting the allegations in the application. It was further pleaded that no part of the house was sublet to Karnail Singh, who being sister's son of the tenant, had been residing sometimes in the house in dispute on account of his relationship with the tenant. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments, the Rent Controller held that the landlord has failed to prove that any part of the house has been sublet to Karnail Singh respondent 2. The plea of the landlord that he required the house in dispute for his own occupation was upheld. Issue No. 2 was decided against the landlord on the ground that full description of Karnail Singh has been mentioned in the reply filed by him. With the findings, order of ejectment was passed against the tenant petitioner. The finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 2 and the question of sub-letting was not challenged before the Appellate Authority. The only question agitated before the Appellate Authority was that the landlord did not require the house in dispute for his own occupation and the application had been made by way of an excuse to eject the tenant. The learned Appellate Authority, however, confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the findings of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the father of the landlord owns a house which is more than sufficient for the needs of the landlord and his father. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel that the story put up by the landlord that he has strained relations with his father and security proceedings are going on between them is only made up affair and a false pretext to seek the ejectment of the petitioner from the house in dispute. I am, however, unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The landlord is residing in the house of the father and his possession is nothing more than that of a licensee. He has no right to continue to reside in that house against the wish of his father. He has, therefore, every right to seek ejectment of the petitioner from the house in dispute for his own use. The learned counsel could not point out any material on the record which could show that the landlord has no bona fide intention to occupy the said house. The finding that the landlord needs the house bona fide for his own use is essentially a finding of fact and I see, no reason to interfere with the said concurred finding recorded by the two Courts below. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed with costs. The tenant is, however, allowed a period of three months from today to vacate the house in dispute and to put the landlord in possession thereof.