LALJI Vs. DAROPTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant Shrimati Daropati from the premises which consist of one room in the house, in question, Her ejectment was sought therefrom on the ground that the landlord required the premises for his own and that of his family members' use and occupation. Those allegations were controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that it could be safely said that the landlord required the premises for his own use and also for that of his family members. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellant Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent COntroller primarily on the ground that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings one of the rooms in the building was vacated by another tenant, named, Banwari Lal and the same was re-let to one Raj Kumar. Thus, according to the Appellants Authority, the requirement of the landlord could not be said to be bonafide. If one room therein was vacated by a tenant Banwari Lal and the landlord's requirement was bonafide then, he would have occupied that room instead of re-letting the same to Raj Kumar, as alleged. In view of that finding the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heared the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record. The landlord himself appeared as A.W. 2. In his cross-examination, he categorically denied that there was any tenant under him known as Banwari Lal or after him, the room vacated by him was again let out to Raj Kumar. To debut this evidence, the tenant himself appeared as R.W. 2 and also produced Badri Prashad and Gulazar Singh as R.W. 1 and R.W. 3, respectively. It has nowhere been stated by any of the witnesses as to who that Raj Kumar was and which portion of the house, in dispute, he was occupying. Thus, there is absolutely no legal evidence on the record to prove that any of the rooms in the building was vacated by the tenant Banwari Lal it was re-let to any person known as Raj Kumar. The learned Rent Controller, thus, rightly came to the conclusion tha the witnesses failed to disclose the name of the father of the said Raj Kumar or about the other members of his family. They were not able to depose as to whether the said Raj Kumar was married or unmarried. The approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. If once it is so found, then, it is not disputed that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide in view of the number of the members of his family. There are 12 members of the family of the landlord. He has got three sons and a wife. Out of the three sons, two are married. One of the said sons had two daughters. The third son is also of a marriageable age. Under the circumstances, the bonafide requirement of the landlord is fully proved on the record.