GURNAM SINGH Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 10th March, 1960 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala, under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) whereby an appeal filed by the tenant-respondent against an order of ejectment dated 24.9.1979 passed against her by the learned Rent Controller was allowed.

(2.) The landlord-petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent from House No. 3133 shown as 'ABCD' in the site plan attached therewith situated at Rajpura. The grounds for eviction set up in the application were that the respondent had neither paid nor tendered rent with effect from 16.11.1978. The rate of rent was alleged to be Rs. 35/- per month. It was further alleged that the petitioner requires the house for his own use and occupation. He is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Rajpura town nor has he vacated such a building without sufficient cause after coming into force of the Act. It was also alleged that the respondent had materially impaired the value and utility of the house in dispute. The learned Rent Controller found that the rate of rent is Rs. 15/- per month. The tender of rent made on the first date of hearing by the respondent was found to be valid. It was held that the respondent had not materially impaired the value and utility of the property. The bonafide requirement of the petitioner for personal use and occupation of the premises in dispute was held to be established. As a result an order of ejectment of the respondent was passed directing her to deliver vacant possession of the house in dispute to the petitioner. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment under revision negatived even the sole surviving ground of bonafide requirement for personal use and occupation of the house in dispute by the petitioner. The appeal was allowed and the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record including the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced before the learned Rent Controller. During the course of hearing the landlord-petitioner also placed on record his affidavit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in Government service. At the time when he filed the ejectment application he was posted at Sangrur. His family consists of four children who were at the time studying in 7th, 6th, 5th and 3rd Standards. The plea of the petitioner was that since he was liable to transfer during the course of his service from one place to another he wanted to settle his wife and children permanently in the house at Rajpura so that the children could get proper education and the same is not affected by his occasional transfers. It was this ground which had prevailed with the learned Rent Controller but had filed to persuade the Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority observed that the petitioner had failed to show that the education facilities at Sangrur were less than such facilities available at Rajpura. The petitioner had to keep his family with him at Sangrur. If he keeps it at Rajpura he would have to lead the life of a married bachelor.