LAXMAN DASS AGGARWAL Vs. A.K. BAHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition where ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE petitioner filed two ejectment applications almost simultaneously against his two tenants. The one out of which this revision petition has arisen, relates to house No. 13-B, Old Tribune Colony, Ambala Cantt. Whereas the other related to house No. 16-B, Old Tribune Colony, Ambala Cantt. Both the houses are adjacent to each other. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The ejectment application relating to house No. 16-B, referred to above, was allowed and the eviction order was maintained even up to this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1505 of 1980 (Dinesh Kumar v. Laxman Dass Aggarwal), decided on 2nd February, 1982. The other ejectment application remained pending. It was decided by the Rent Controller vide order dated 18th May, 1983. The main ground for rejecting the application by the Rent Controller was that since the ejectment order had already been passed in favour of the landlord with respect to house No. 16-B, his requirement, if any, was fulfilled and, therefore, the same was liable to the rejected. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, he has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord retired from Government service on 2nd February, 1980, as Under Secretary to Government, Haryana. Thereafter, he wanted to occupy his own house at Ambala Cantt. The accommodation in the other house, i.e., House No. 16-B, which has been vacated by the other tenant was not sufficient to meet his requirements. According to the learned counsel, the approach of the authorities below in this behalf is wrong, illegal and misconceived. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no element of need so far as the requirement of the landlord was concerned and, therefore, the view taken by the authorities below in this regard could not be interfered with in revision by this Court.