RAWEL KAUR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlady's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but the same was set aside, in appeal, by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The petitioner is the landlady of House No. 58/69, situated in N.I.T. Faridabad. There are found tenants in the said house. One room is on rent with the tenant Mohinder Singh. According to the landlady it was rented to him at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- in addition to electricity and water charges and house tax. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent, etc. and that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent from Ist June, 1975. However, the landlady claimed rent only from 1st June, 1978, for 36 months, @ Rs. 100/- per month and thirdly, she required the premises for her own use and occupation as the accommodation already with her was insufficient for her requirements. Allegations were also made that the tenant was guilty of such acts and conducts as were nuisance to the occupiers of the house and that the tenant had damaged the premises, and thus, impaired the value and utility thereof. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, the said allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that the rent was Rs. 60/- p.m. and not Rs. 100/- as alleged. The learned Rent Controller found that the rent was Rs. 60/- per month and not Rs. 100/- as claimed by the landlady. Thus, the tender made on the first date of hearing was found to be valid. Other grounds were also negatived by the learned Rent Controller. However, on the ground of bonafide personal necessity he observed as under :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the necessary ingredients were pleaded in the replication filed on her behalf and there is no evidence on record to show that the present accommodation in her occupation was sufficient and, therefore, the requirement was bonafide. According to the learned counsel the finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily.