(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE premises in dispute consisting of a chaubara was purchased by Kewal Krishan landlord form its original owner Baldev Raj on 13.7.1977 vide sale Ex. A1 for Rs. 8,000/- Maheswar Dutt was already a tenant of the premises in dispute under the previous landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The present ejectment application was filed on 30.9.1982 inter alia on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. According to the landlord, at present he was residing in a rented premises where he was paying Rs. 30/- as rent p.m. Moreover, the Landlord Baldev Raj of these premises was insisting to vacate the premises for that purpose and he has also taken ejectment proceedings against him. According to the written statement it was pleaded that the landlord was already occupying a residential building in the urban area concerned and therefore was not entitled to ejectment of the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the accommodation in occupation of the landlord is definitely more spacious as compared with the one sought to be got vacated and therefore, eventually the rent of that is certainly to be higher than the one which is lesser than any accommodation. On that ground, the bonafide requirement of the landlord was negatived. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the learned Rent Controller with the observation that the mere factum that the landlord is paying more rent for the premises in his occupation as tenant than the rent he is getting regarding the premises in dispute is not itself sufficient to conclude that he bonafide requires the premises in dispute for personal use and occupation.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record, I find that the landlord has been able to prove his bonafide requirement. Admittedly, landlord Kewal Krishan is residing in a rented house owned by one Baldev Raj and he is paying Rs. 20/- as rent p.m. It is also in evidence that Baldev Raj has taken ejectment proceedings against him. The shop on the ground floor of the premises in dispute is already in occupation of the landlord. Under these circumstances the requirement of the landlord is most bonafide. The approach of the authorities below in this regard in wrong, illegal and misconceived. When landlord Baldev Raj has already taken ejectment proceedings against him, the present landlord is entitled to seek ejectment to his tenant from the premises dispute. It is not necessary for him to wait till the eviction order is actually passed against him. Even the ejectment application may not be necessary if the evidence is brought that the landlord of the rented premises wants his tenant to vacate the premises. It is also not dispute that the landlord is getting Rs. 15/- as rent per mensem for the premises in dispute whereas he is paying Rs. 30/- p.m. as rent for the accommodation he is occupying at present. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the requirement is most bonafide, as observed earlier.