PIARE LAL Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of Civil Revision petition No. 893 of 1986 as they arise out of the common judgment of the Appellate Authority dated February 7, 1986.

(2.) THE landlords Kundan Lal and Rattan Chand sons of Durga Dass sought the ejectment of their tenants Piare Lal in Civil Revision Petition No. 861 of 1986, and Krishna Devi in Civil Revision Petition No. 893 of 1986, primarily on the ground that Rattan Chand, landlord, required the premises for his personnel use and occupation as he was to retire from service on October 4, 1983, as the Forest Manager, in Orissa. He wanted to settle in his house situated at Ferozepore City. They had no other accommodation in their occupation in the urban area concerned, nor they had vacated any. In the written statement, both the tenants controverted the plea. They even denied that the applicants were the landlords qua them. However, the learned Rent Controller found that there was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also held that the landlords had failed to establish that Rattan Chand, landlord, had a firm intention of coming back to Ferozpur (which he left in the year 1948) so as to entitle him to a verdict of person bonafide requirement. In view of the said finding, both the ejectment applications were dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the requirement of Rattan Chand to occupy the demised premises, was bonafide. It was also found that Rattan Chand had stated that he had retired from the service on October 4, 1983 and thereafter he wanted to settle at Ferozpur, his native town, and therefore, he required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. According to the Appellant Authority, he had nothing to doubt the intention of Rattan Chand, landlord. It was also found that apparently Rattan Chand, landlord, will come to Ferozpur when the demised premises are vacated because he cannot be expected to place his luggage on the road side. In view of this finding, the eviction orders were passed against the tenants. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants have filed these two revision petitions in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rattan Chand, landlord, has not retired and was still working in Orissa and, therefore, the findings of the Appellant Authority, in this behalf, are wrong and illegal.