SHANGARA SINGH Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (hereinafter to be called the Act) directed against the decision of the Appellate Authority, Ambala dated March 21, 1975, by which the appeal of the landlord Respondent was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the ejectment application was set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Jai Singh, Respondent, the owner of the house (the premises in dispute) gave the same on lease except one kitchen, to Shangara Singh (hereinafter to be called the Petitioner) on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/0 -. The Respondent was a Government servant and retired from service in the year 1966. Application for ejectment of the Petitioner (out of which the present revision petition has arisen) was filed on February 10, 19 2. on the ground that the Petitioner was in arrears of rent from August 1, 1971 to January 31, 1972, and that the Respondent required the premises, in dispute, for his own use and occupation as he had retired from service. The Petitioner paid the arrears of rent which were received by the Respondent. The plea of the landlord that he required the premises for his use and occupation bona fide was controverted Inter alia it was contended that the Respondent though had retired from service in the year 1966, entered into an agreement on June 19, 1971(sic) with one Kishan Chand Sharma for the sale of the premises in dispute for Rs. 15,500/ - and according to its terms the sale deed was to be executed on or before November 15 1971. As the landlord Respondent, failed to execute the sale deed, a notice was issued on behalf of said Kishan Chand Sharma to the landlord on November 8, 1971 for getting the sale deed executed. To this reply was sent be the Respondent through an Advocate Mr. M L. Anand, on November 11, 1971, which is Exhibit R. 1. This reply is admitted by the landlord. According to the same the execution of the agreement to sale and the condition to execute the sale deed by November 15, 1971, was admitted, but it was denied that there was any condition to get the premises in dispute vacated before executing the sale deed. However, it was stated in this reply that efforts would be made to get the premises vacated in accordance with law. According to the averments of the Petitioners, as Shri Kishan Chand Sharma, the intending vendee, refused to purchase the premises in dispute unless the same had been got vacated, the Respondent filed this rejectment application on February 10, 1972, that is, within three months of the reply, Exhibit R.1. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) RELIEF After recording evidence and hearing arguments, the Rent Controller dismissed the electment application and held that the landlord bad not been able to prove that he required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. Appeal against that order was accepted by the learned Appellate Authority and the order of ejectment was passed. While accepting the appeal of the landlord: the learned Appellate Authority observed as follows: