HUKAM CHAND Vs. MANGE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the Authorities below.

(2.) THREE landlords Hukam Chand, Mangat Ram and Kashmiri Lal sons of Tara Chand sought the ejectment of their tenant Mange Ram from the ground-floor of the house in dispute consisting of six rooms which is on rent with him since 1953 at Rs. 100 per annum. The ejectment application was filed on November 10, 1980. The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground that the landlords bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation. It was alleged in the application that the portion occupied by the tenant is required by Hukam Chand, one of the landlords for his own occupation. They are residing in village Bainswal Kalan, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, but now Hukam Chand wants to shift from rural area to urban area to enjoy better facilities of city life and to give better education to his and his brother's children. It was also pleaded that the landlords are not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned sufficient for their living nor they have vacated any such building. However, the accommodation on the first floor of the house in dispute is most insufficient to meet their needs and the same was lying vacant and locked and cannot be used without the ground floor. The allegation was also made that tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In the written statement, these allegations were controverted and pleaded that Hukam Chand landlord has got five members of the family and the accommodation on the first floor of the house in dispute is sufficient to meet his requirement. The Rent Controller found that Hukam Chand landlord has failed to prove his bonafide requirement of the premises in dispute and on that finding the application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. It was observed by the Appellate Authority that the intention of the petitioners was clear from the sole fact that they have failed to occupy the portion of the upper storey of the building in dispute available to them. Therefore, it can be said without hesitation that their requirement to get the ground floor of the house in dispute vacated was not bonafide. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the statement of Hukam Chand landlord. Both the Authorities below, after appreciating the entire evidence, have come to a firm finding that the requirement of the landlords was not bonafide. Apart from that even the statement of Hukam Chand, read in this Court, did not inspire confidence. Thus, I do not find any illegality or any impropriety in the concurrent findings of the Courts below to warrant interference. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.