LEKH RAM Vs. KULWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose eviction was allowed by the Rent Controller, but dismissed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) LEKH Ram, landlord, sought the ejectment of the tenants Kulwant Rai and another, from the residential house situated at Barnala primarily on the ground that he required the same bonafide for his personal use and occupation; for the use of his son Ram Kumar who was working at Barnala and also for the use and occupation of his grand daughter Sunita who was studying in the Industrial Training School, but had to daily come and got to Dhuri where her father Ram Kumar was residing. It was further pleaded that at present he was living at Bhatinda and was occupying a rented house there at a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. Since he had no work to do at Bhatinda, he wanted to shift to his own house at Barnala. It was also pleaded that he did not own or occupy any other residential building in the urban area concerned, nor he had vacated any such building without any sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The other ground of non-payment of the arrears of rent for seeking the tenants, eviction from the demised premises is not relevant at this stage. The allegations made by the landlord were controverted by the tenants in the written statement. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had been able to prove his bonafide requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenants. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and held that the requirement of the landlord could not be said to bonafide one. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed against the tenant was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has came up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that on the facts brought on the record, it has been amply proved that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide for his own use and occupation; the approach of the Rent Controller in this behalf was correct and that the said finding has been reversed by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures.