RAJ KUMARI Vs. CHAMAN LAL CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlady sought the ejectment of her tenant from the demised premises which consist of two rooms, a kitchen and a bath room at the No. 45, Street No.9, Central Town, Jullundur City. The premises were let out in March, 1969, to the tenant. The ejectment application was filed in April, 1982, primarily on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for the occupation of his married son Vipin Kumar and his family. The present accommodation in her occupation was not sufficient to meet her requirement as well as that of her married son. Her son, Vipin Kumar, was not in occupation of any other residential building in the urban area concerned. In the written statement the tenant maintained that the landlady did not require the premises for the use of her son and in fact the eviction application has been filed only to pressuries him to increase the rent. Rather, the tenant levelled counter-allegations that the brother of the landlady, Balraj Kohli, has occupied the vacant room in the house and had started creating nuisance therein. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlady did not require premises, in dispute, for the occupation of her married son. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding the Rent Controller and resultantly, dismissed the appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found that the requirement of the landlady was not bonafide and that being a finding of fact, could not be interfered with in this revision petition.