SHRIMATI SUKHNANDAN KAUR Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.1986 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Kapurthala, under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), whereby it has affirmed the judgment dated 23.7.1984 of the learned Rent Controller dismissing an application for ejectment of the tenant-respondent filed by Smt. Sukhnandan Kaur deceased, who is now represented by her sons and a daughter as petitioner herein.

(2.) SMT . Sukhnandan Kaur filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the respondent from the rented land situated near Hira Devi Hospital, Vegetable Market, Kapurthala, fully described in the head note of the application and shown in pink shade in the plan Ex.A.W.4/A. She set up as many as three grounds for the ejectment of the respondent from the rented land, but the one which was pressed into service when the matter was finally heard by the learned Rent Controller was that Smt. Sukhanandan Kaur required the rented land for her son Opinder Singh for extending his poultry farm. It was averred that Opinder Singh is a member of her family. He has been residing with her and is unmarried due to scarcity of land, he cannot extend his poultry farm. For extending the poultry firm, he requires the rented land for his own occupation bonafide. This ground, however, did not succeed with the learned Rent Controller and the application for ejectment was dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before me that the learned Courts below have not fully appreciated the case as set up by Smt. Sukhnandan Kaur deceased and as pursued by the petitioners after her death. The plan Ex.A.W.4/A shows that the house of the petitioners consisting of two rooms and a courtyard adjoins the rented land in dispute shown in pink colour. It fact, the courtyard in front of the two rooms of the residential house is adjacent to the rented land on which a shed and a room are constructed. It was the case of the petitioners that Opinder Singh petitioner is already having his poultry farm in the courtyard of their house. According to the statement of Smt. Sukhnandan Kaur as A.W.1 he had in his poultry farm 150 birds but he intended to extend the said farm. It was not possible to do so within the courtyard which is 38' x 13' as per its dimensions given in Ex. A.W.4/A. Thus, the rented land adjacent to it was bonafide required by Opinder Singh.