RAM SARAN DASS Vs. YOG RAJ

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlords Ram Saran Dass and Tilak Raj sought the ejectment of their tenants from the premises, in dispute, consisting of rooms kitchen verandah on the first floor and barsati on the second floor, which is a portion of the main building, situated in the main bazar, which was let out to Des Raj, deceased-tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20 in the year 1977. The original tenant Des Raj died in 1979 and after his death, the respondents are in occupation of the demised premises as tenant being heirs. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlords bonafide require the premises for their own use and occupation and the present accommodation in their occupation was insufficient to meet the requirements of their family. According to the landlord, Tilak Raj, and his family consists of himself, his wife and four children all of whom are studying in schools where as the family of Ram Saran Dass consists of his wife and four children, who are also studying in schools and colleges.

(3.) EARLIER , on behalf of the tenants, an affidavit of Smt. Janak Chawla, widow of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, dated 9th April 1986, was filed in the Court wherein it was stated that during the pendency of this litigation. Surinder Pal was one of the tenants in the building in dispute and was in occupation of three rooms and a kitchen. Now, he has purchased a separate house from one Leela Wati Chawla vide registered sale-deed dated 22nd October, 1984 and Surinder pal is living in that house. Thus, the said accommodation, earlier occupied by Surinder Pal, was now available to the landlord Tilak Raj. In reply to the said affidavit, the landlords filed the affidavit of Ram Saran Dass, dated 27th April, 1986. Therein, he admitted that Surinder Pal had purchased the house on the 22nd October, 1984 and had shifted to that house in the year 1985. However, according to the said affidavit, the accommodation vacated by Surinder Pal does not meet the requirements of the landlords. The premises, in dispute are required by them, as the present accommodation in their occupation was not sufficient to meet the requirements of both the families.