MOHAN LAL Vs. RAMJI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1146, 1147 and 1148 of 1985 as the question involved is common in all these cases.

(2.) RAMJI Dass landlord sought ejectment of his tenants Mohan Lal and Labhu Ram from the premises, in dispute, on the ground that the premises are required by the landlord for its use and consulting room by his son Dr. Satish Kumar, M.B.B.S., who intends to start practice as a registered medical practitioner. It was pleaded that Dr. Satish Kumar does not occupy, in the urban area of Moga, any other building for use as a consulting room and also has not vacated any such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. In the written statement, it was pleaded on behalf of the tenant that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide as he had got other rooms in the house to use as consulting room. After evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the evidence on the file was sufficient to hold that Dr. Satish Kumar, who is not employed anywhere, is dependent upon his father; requires the disputed premises for starting a consulting room to practice as a medical practitioner and, as such, the landlord was entitled to eject his tenants. Consequently, eviction orders were passed against both the tenants namely, Mohan Lal and Labhu Ram separately. Dissatisfied with the same under Order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to produce a copy of the site plan, alleging that, after the decision of the Rent Controller, the landlord got redeemed a house from one Chiranji Lal and got its vacant possession. The same house is in possession of the landlord and those premises are lying vacant. The said application was allowed by the Appellate Authority. In the reply filed on behalf of the landlord to the said application, it was pleaded that the portion of the house vacated by Chiranji Lal was not fit for a clinic and consulting room by a doctor. Moreover, that portion is a residential portion. The landlord has got six sons, out of whom two are married and all of them with the families of the married sons reside in the premises vacated by Chiranji Lal as the adjoining portion already in their possession was insufficient for their requirements. Keeping in view the larger number of family member, the learned Appellate Authority, after taking into consideration the additional evidence and the evidence already on the record, came to the conclusion that:-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the site plan and the evidence on the record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below as to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The learned Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the accommodation made available after the order of the Rent Controller as well. Since the landlord sought ejectment of the tenants on the ground that he required the premises in dispute, for his son who wants to start his medical practice, the suitability of the place was a material consideration. It has been found as a fact that the accommodation made available by Chiranji Lal mortgagee was not suitable and sufficient for opening a clinic and consulting room, whereas the demised premises has the possibility of expansion. In this view of the matter, both the petitions (Civil Revision Nos. 1146 of 1985) fail and are dismissed.