LAKSHMI NARAIN Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlord Bharat Singh sought the ejectment of the tenant Narain Dass and the alleged sub-tenant Lakshmi Narain inter alia on the ground that he bonafide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. According to the landlord, he was living in a village near Gurgaon where the premises are situate and for the better education of his children, he wanted to shift from the village to the town. It was further stated that he did not have any other residential building in the urban area concerned nor he had vacated any after the coming into force of the Rent law. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord's requirement was not bonafide because he had erected a chaubara and a baithak in his house in the village about a year or one and a half years earlier to his statement in the Court. According to the Rent Controller, if the landlord was anxious to shift to Gurgaon, he would not have made those additions to his house in the village. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord's desire to shift to the town for the better education of his children was very genuine and legitimate. It further observed that it was the choice of the landlord and none else had any business to advise him in the matter. Consequently, the landlord's requirement was held to be bonafide and the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.