CHAUDHARY DEVKI NANDAN Vs. AMAR NATH GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated May 1, 1974 of the learned Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control) of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973. The petitioner is landlord and approached the learned Rent Controller for ejectment of the respondent from the house in dispute on the ground that he needed it for the residence of his two married sons. This plea was opposed on behalf of the respondent on the ground that a little before this petition was filed the landlord let out another house which lay on the back of residential house of the petitioner to the Government for setting up a dispensary. It was averred that the petitioner did not have any bonafide need of house in which the respondent was residing.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller observed that the landlord had made statement to the effect that the house in dispute was needed for the residence of his married sons, and that in a situation like this the statement made by the landlord should be given due weight.

(3.) The learned Appellate Authority after considering the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the plea regarding the bonafide need of the landlord could not be sustained on the basis of the evidence led in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Authority should have refrained from departing from the normal principle in such cases that the statement of the landlord regarding personal necessity should be accepted because if premises are not used by the landlord himself the tenant could claim re-entry into the premises after the statutory period of six months. He has also submitted that the learned Appellate Authority has based its decision on grounds which are untenable in law.