SITA RANI Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE premises, in dispute, are house No. 652-53/2, situated at Lower Kurari, Kalka, District Ambala. Kishori Lal (now deceased) landlord inter alia on the ground that the tenant was already in possession of a residential building allotted to him by the Government which was sufficient for his requirements in the urban area of Kalka, which is one of the grounds for seeking his ejectment from the demised premises under Section 13(3)(iv) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. The Rent Controller found that the tenant was occupying the Government quarter allotted to him, and therefore, the landlord was entitled to seek his ejectment from the demised premises. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against him. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners who are the widow and daughter of Kishori Lal, tenant, have come up in revision to this Court as he died during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority and his legal representatives were brought on the record, there.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if Rajinder Kumar has been allotted the quarter which was being earlier occupied by his father Kishori Lal, tenant, even then, the widow and the minor daughter of Kishori Lal, i.e. the petitioners, were entitled to a separate residence. I do not find any merit in this contention. Admittedly, earlier, they were living in the railway accommodation which was provided to Kishori Lal, tenant, which accommodation has now been allotted to Rajinder Kumar son of Kishori Lal, tenant, now deceased.