SHANTI DEVI Vs. AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD. RAJPURA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) SHRIMATI Shanti Devi and her husband Prem Chand, filed the ejectment of their tenant M/s. Amrit Banaspati Company and Suresh Aggarwal from the demised premises on the ground that the house, in dispute, was required by Shanti Devi, petitioner, for her personal residence and occupation along with her son who was studying in the Medical College. It was pleaded that the landlord were residing in unhygienic accommodation which was unsafe and insufficient and without modern amenities of sewerage etc. It was also pleaded that Kulwant Rai, brother of Shanti Devi was a chronic patient of asthma and wanted to reside with her along with his wife. In the written statement, the said allegations were controverted and it was pleaded that the accommodation in occupation of the landlords was sufficient to meet their requirements. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that since Shanti Devi had not came to the witness-box, her personal requirement of bonafide occupation was not proved. On that short ground alone, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority though did not agree with the said reasoning of the Rent Controller, yet observed that the landlords had been residing in the accommodation in their possession since the year 1953, without any difficulty and the surroundings thereto could not be stated to be such that it was difficult for the landlords to reside there. It was further observed that they could make a cattle shed and occupy the two rooms which were being used for tethering the cattle. Thus, it was held they had failed to drove their bonafide requirement. Consequently the appeal was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, they have filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the whole approach of the authorities below was illegal, improper and misconceived. From the evidence on the record, the bonafide requirement of the landlords to occupy the demised premises has been amply proved. In any case, argued the learned counsel, in view of the subsequent even that their son Naresh Kumar of a marriageable age and had obtained the Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Course in June, 1983, they were entitled to eject their tenant for his separate residence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the mere fact that the landlords wanted more accommodations to live comfortably was no ground to eject the tenant. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Mangat Ram v. Om Parkash, 1983(1) RCR 30 : 1980 (1) RCR 414.The learned counsel further submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, both the authorities below have found that the requirement of the landlords was not bonafide and that being a finding of facts coudl not be interfered with in this revision petition.