JAI KAUR Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlady Jai Kaur sought the ejectment of her tenant Sukhdev Singh Dhillon from the house in dispute, situate in Faridkot, which was rented out to him for Rs. 375/- p.m. The ejectment petition was filed on 30th September, 1981, on the sole ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation and that she did not have any premises, in her occupation, in the urban area concerned nor had she vacated any such building without sufficient cause. Specifying her need for her personal use it was stated that she belonged to village Pakhi Kalan in District Faridkot and all her relatives were living there that she has to visit Faridkot in order to look after the lands she has at Pakhi Kalan at Mallewala; that she is an old lady of 65 years and her husband is aged 70 years, and, so, they had decided to settle in their ancestral home at Faridkot, and that they had three children who were settled abroad and they generally come to India to see them. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant on the plea that there was no bonafide requirement on the part of the landlady to occupy the premises: that the husband of the landlady had a big Kothi at Ambala and he and the petitioner were residing there after retirement of the former, and there was no occasion for her to shift from Ambala to Faridkot ; that earlier also the premises in dispute were on rent with on Joginder Singh for Rs. 300/- p.m. and after the same was vacated in November, 1978, the same was let out to the tenant for an increased, amount viz. Rs. 375/- p.m.

(3.) AT the time of filing of this petition, civil miscellaneous No. 257-CII/1986 was also filed on behalf of the landlady, stating therein that after the decision of the Rent Controller, and during pendency of the appeal the order of ejectment were passed against her husband by the Rent Controller, Ambala, on 25th May, 1985, and the same being a material fact for the purpose of the present revision petition, should be taken into consideration at the time of final hearing. Reply to the said miscellaneous application had been filed on behalf of the tenant. It was stated therein that although the eviction order is said to have been passed on 25th May, 1985, the same was never bought to the notice of the appellate court while the appeal was pending and was ultimately dismissed on 18th October, 1985. Thus, there was no ground for allowing the said evidence to be brought on record.