KAMALBIR KAUR Vs. BALDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) SHRIMATI Kamalbir Kaur sought the ejectment of the tenant Baldev Raj from the residential house situated within the municipal limits of Gurdaspur, which was rented out at monthly rent of Rs. 30/- in the year 1981 when the same was purchased by the landlady from its original owner. The eviction was sought on the ground that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. Presently, she, along with her husband, was living in a joint house owned by her husband and his brother, Major Jaspal Singh, in village Alley Clak, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. On account of the partition, only one room has fallen to her husband's share. She was married in the year 1976, but she was not blessed with any child till then. Therefore, she and her husband adopted a daughter named in a who at the time of the filing of the eviction petition was one and a half years old (the eviction petition was filed on March 9, 1984). She was to be admitted to the school after about a year. There was no good school in the village. As such, she was to be admitted in a school at Gurdaspur. The amenities which are available in the towns were not available in the village. Therefore, she required the premises for her own use and occupation. She was not in occupation of any other house within the urban area concerned, nor she had vacated any after the coming into force of the Rent law. The ejectment application was contested on the ground that village Alley Chak was about two kilometres away from Gurdaspur where she and her husband owned considerable land. They also owned a tractor to look after that land. The family had to stay at the village where they were occupying a good house consisting of many rooms. It was denied that any partition took place between her husband and other members. Though it was admitted that the landlady had not given birth to any child, yet it was denied that she had adopted a daughter. According to the tenant, even otherwise also the child was too small to go to a school then. The landlady and her husband had been earning thousands of rupees through cultivation of land and if they shifted to Gurdaspur, the said land would be neglected. On the consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Controller found:

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority is wholly improper and illegal.