BAWA LAL Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below. Originally the house in dispute of which demised premises form part belonged to one Sardari Lal. Shri Bawa Lal and Suresh Kumar, tenant was inducted by him in a portion of the said house hearing No 1588, Sector 18 D, Chandigarh on the monthly rent of Rs. 100/- excluding water and electricity charges. The demised premises consisted of one room known as garage portion only. Sardari Lal died leaving behind three sons and four daughters including the present landlord Jagdish Chander. After the death of Sardari Lal the tenant accepted Jagdish Chander as his landlord and also paid the rent to him. Jagdish Chander sought the ejectment of his tenant, inter alia, on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation as the present accommodation in the house in dispute is insufficient as he was keeping one room, whereas there are five family members i.e. three children and the husband and the wife. It was also pleaded that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.

(2.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant he disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The other allegations were also controverted. The learned Rent Controller found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation as the present accommodation was insufficient. In view of these findings the ejectment order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. On the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently held by the authorities below that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide as the present accommodation was in sufficient keeping in view his family members. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the said finding and, therefore, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.