ANAND PARKASH MANGAL Vs. SHRI RAM SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. Vide this Court order dated March 5, 1985, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 777-CII of 1986 in this revision petition, filed on behalf of the landlord, was allowed and the parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller on April 5, 1986. The Rent Controller was directed to send his report through the Appellant Authority as to find out whether the landlord required the premises for his personal requirement or not because no specific finding was given earlier by the authorities below in this behalf as it was held that the premises, in dispute were non-residential. However, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shri Hari Mittal v. Shri B.M. Sikka, 1986 Punjab Law Reporter 1 = {1986 HRR 1} it was no more disputed that since the premises formed part of a residential building the landlord could seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity therefrom.

(2.) THE detailed report of the Appellate Authority, dated September 8, 1986, affirming the findings of the Rent Controller, has been received in this Court. It has been held therein :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below, wherein it has been held that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation.