TAKKAU CHAND Vs. KHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE premises, in dispute, are a part of house No. EA-166/167. The other parts of the building are tenanted by other persons. The landlord sought the ejectment of tenant from the demised premises on the ground that he required the same for his own occupation as his family consisted of 26 members. He was occupying house No. EA-174 consisting of four rooms on the first floor and five rooms on the ground floor besides one guest room. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the accommodation in possession of the landlord in house No. EA-174 consisting of ten rooms were quite sufficient. Besides, the landlord had rented out the other portions of the building after getting them vacated from the previous tenants. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had failed to prove that he required the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. According to the learned Rent Controller, the landlord was residing in house No. EA-174 comprising of nine rooms and one kitchen. The said accommodation was sufficient to accommodate the landlord and his family. As a result, the eviction application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) ON the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been found that the present accommodation in house No. EA-174 consisting of nine rooms and one kitchen was sufficient to meet his requirement. I do not find any illegality or impropriety therein. Moreover, there is cogent evidence on the record to prove that after ejecting certain tenants from the buildings, i.e. house No. EA-166/167 the landlord again rented out the same on higher rent to some other persons. Thus, it appears, the landlord does not bonafide require the premises, in dispute, which consist of only one room and a kitchen. There is nothing on the record to show that the landlord took any steps to eject other tenants also who are occupying the other portions of the building.