RAM PARKASH JERATH Vs. OM PARKASH VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlord respondent Om Parkash Vij sought the ejectment of his tenant Ram Parkash Jerath, the petitioner, from house No. 305, Adarsh Nagar, Jullundur, inter alia on the ground that he required the same for his and his son's personal use and occupation. It was pleaded that neither he, nor his son was in occupation of any other residential building within the municipal limits of the urban area concerned, nor they had vacated any such house since the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act) and nor they owned any other house therein. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was denied that the premises were required by the landlord bonafide for use and occupation. According to him, the landlord and his son did not at all require the house for their use and occupation as the landlord lives at Chandigarh in the residential house as of right and also runs the shop of photographer at Chandigarh. Similarly, the son of the landlord also resides at Kurukshetra in Haryana where he runs a Photo Studio. According to him, the landlord had made the ejectment application mala fide with a view to enhance rent and to desist him from pursuing the application for fixation of the fair rent filed by him. The other allegations made by the landlord were also controverted. There was some dispute as regards the rate of rent between the parties. According to the landlord, the rate of rent was Rs. 375/- whereas according to the tenant, it was Rs. 350/- per month. However, the tenant tendered the same at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month. On trial, the Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs. 350/- and not Rs. 375/- per month, as alleged by the landlord On the question of personal necessity, he found that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide. The ground of ill-health raised by the landlord was an after-thought. According to him, the landlord did not require the premises bonafide either for his personal requirement or that of his son. Ultimately, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, before the Appellate Authority, the landlord challenged the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of his bonafide requirement only. The learned Appellate Authority, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion :-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.