GURBAX SINGH Vs. MAL SINGH NAGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords revision petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlord Gurbux Singh, sought the ejectment of the tenant. Mal Singh, from the residential house, No. 220, Sunder Nagar, Passey Road, Patiala. The said house was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month in the year 1977. The landlord was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India and retired therefrom on February 28, 1983. In the ejectment application, which was filed on February 13, 1982, the tenant's ejectment therefrom was sought on the ground that the landlord was residing in a rented house and that he bonafide required the demised premises for his use and occupation. His family consisted of his mother, his wife and three children. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, if was pleaded that the landlord was occupying a house in the Ram Gali, Patiala, which was very comfortable and convenient for his and his family's living. It was on that account that the house, in dispute, was given on rent after construction by him. The afore-said house was quite sufficient to accommodate the landlord's family and, therefore, his requirement of the demised premises was not bonafide. The Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord required the premises for his use and occupation bonafide and that he was not occupying any other premises in the urban area concerned; nor he had vacated any such premises without sufficient cause. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller primarily on the ground that the landlord had failed to prove as to what was the accommodation with him where he was residing at present and that the same was not sufficient for the requirement of his family. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

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