BAL KRISHAN Vs. SHRI WALAITI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but the same was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE house in dispute originally belonged to on Piara Lal who had let it out to the tenant Walaiti Ram at monthly rental of Rs. 6.00 Bal Krishan petitioner purchased the said house for a sum of Rs. 5500/- on 8th August, 1974 as he wanted to have an independent accommodation for his own comfortable living. He filed the present ejectment application on 23rd September, 1974 primarily on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation and secondly alleging that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant these allegations were controverted. He denied for want of knowledge if Bal Karishan petitioner had purchased the property in dispute from its landlord Piara Lal particularly when no notice of transfer had been served on him. He denied that the house in dispute was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the landlord bonafide required the same. On trial the learned Rent Controller found that from the sale deed Exhibit A. 2 it is clear that the petitioner had purchased the property in dispute from Piara Lal, the previous land-owner and thus he had become the landlord. It was further found that the landlord has proved by cogent and reliable evidence that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. In view that finding, the eviction order was passed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove that he validly the purchased property from its previous owner Piara Lal. It was found that there was no cogent evidence on the record to prove that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation particularly when he was at present residing at Patiala and the premises in dispute are situated at Nabha. According to the appellate authority, the mere fanciful wish of the landlord to shift to the house at Nabha is of no avail to him as the element of need is missing. As a result of these findings the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) IN view of the said document it is no more contested now that Bal Krishan petitioner was the landlord of the demised premises because he had purchased the same from its previous owner Piara Lal.