LABHOO RAM Vs. SEETAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller dismissing the landlord's application for eviction of the respondent. On facts there is no dispute. The landlord was employed as an Assistant Accounts Officer and after his retirement was serving in the same capacity in Dehradun. As soon as his extended service came to a end, he came back to Ambala and occupied a part of the house in dispute. A part of this house is in occupation of the respondent. The other part was in occupation of one Banke. The landlord filed an application for eviction of the respondent on the 22nd of February, 1965, inter alia on the ground that the accommodation with him was insufficient for his own requirements. The other grounds which were raised are no longer in controversy and I have not, therefore, noticed them. During the pendency of the application on the 22nd of September, 1965, Banke surrendered the possession and with the consent of the landlord the premises were rented out to Miss Paul. It has been found as a fact by the Rent Controller that the accommodation with the landlord was insufficient for his requirements.

(2.) In other words need for more accommodation was bona fide. But in spite of this finding the application was dismissed because Banke's accommodation fell vacant and according to the Rent Controller that accommodation would have met the requirements of the landlord fully and, therefore, he should not have agreed to rent, it out to Miss Paul. It is on this ground alone that the petition has failed.

(3.) On appeal the Appellate Authority remitted the case to the Rent Controller for a finding whether the landlord had vacated the premises without any reasonable cause after the passing of the Act. The Rent Controller returned the finding that the landlord had not vacated any premises within the urban area of Ambala Cantt, without any reasonable cause after the passing of the Act. After the report, the Appellate Authority proceeded to deal with the landlord's appeal. 'The Appellate Authority rejected the application on the same ground on which the Rent Controller had rejected the landlord's application, namely, the landlord's consent to the letting of premises in occupation of Banke to Miss Paul would necessarily lead to the dismissal of the eviction application. It is against this decision that the present application for revision has been preferred.