HIRA SINGH Vs. SHRI MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Phul, and that of the Appellate Authority, Bhatinda, by which the petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be ejected from the house in question. The landlord-respondent purchased the property in dispute from the Custodian on 4th December, 1967, in auction. He put in an application for ejectment on the ground that he required the house bonafide for his own use. This controversy forms issue No. 4. Other ground are also taken but we are not much concerned with the same. The learned Rent Controller, decided this issue in favour of the landlord and to the similar effect is the finding of the learned Appellate Authority. It is in evidence at the landlord does not own any other house in Mandi Phul. It is further in evidence that the landlord is living in a rented house. The land-purchased the house from the custodian for a sum of Rs. 4, 500/- in auction with a view to live in the same. There is nothing on the record to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by both the authorities below. It may be pointed out that at the time of admission of the petition, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application made the petitioner on 10th September, 1973, was not dealt with by the learned Appellate Authority. It was primarily on this ground that this revision Petition was admitted. From the records I find that an application was made on 10th September, 1973, on behalf of the petitioner where in the averments made was that the landlord has constructed another house at Mandi Phul and that the Appellate Authority should either inspect the spot itself or a Local Commissioner be appointed. This application was decided by the Appellate Authority on 14th September, 1973. The Appellate Authority same to the conclusion that the application was filed to gain time and for no other purpose as the same was filed after the arguments in the appeal had en concluded. No fault can be found with this order of the Appellate Authority. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to go into he other questions whether the tenure of rent and the costs made by the tenant were to the tune of the actual dues to which the landlord was entitled or not as even it that finding is reversed, the petition is liable to be dismissed on view of the finding on issue No. 4.

(2.) For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner may vacate the house by 3rd October, 1977 provided he pays the rent upto date within 15 days from today.