HANS RAJ Vs. BANARSI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed the judgment dated 23.12.1982 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, under section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') whereby it set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and by allowing the application of the landlord respondent directed ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the premises in dispute.

(2.) THE respondent filed an application under section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioner from the residential premises shown in red in the plan attached thereto. It was alleged that the petitioner was a tenant under him in the said premises at Rs. 18/- per month and a rent note dated 12.6.1963 had been executed by him. The ejectment was, inter alia, sought on the ground that the accommodation already in possession of the respondent consisted of a room, a deori and a verandah which is in sufficient to accommodation him, his wife, his son, daughter-in-law and grand children. It was further averred that the relations between his wife and his daughters-in-law are strained and they could not live together. The petitioner filed his reply to the ejectment application wherein he repelled the aforesaid groun of bonafide need for personal use and occupation of the premises by the respondent.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as also evidence brought on the record before the Rent Controller. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent had got vacated the house adjoining the premises in dispute and instead of occupying the same he allowed the same to be occupied by his son Sant Kumar. This contention has no force for the reason that the said adjoining house was got vacated specifically for accommodation Sant Kumar, son of the respondent, and he was so accommodated therein. As regards the accommodation in occupation of the respondent at present, the parties are at variance. While it is the case of the respondent that he is in occupation of only one room, a deori and a verandah, the case of the petitioner is that he has got five rooms in his occupation. The learned Appellate Authority has dealt with this matter in quite some detail. One of the rooms which is alleged to be in the occupation of the respondent is in fact with another son of the respondent, namely, Ashwani Kumar, who is posted out of Ludhiana, and is keeping his luggage in the said room. It was rightly held by the learned Appellate Authority that occupation of the said room by Ashwani Kumar cannot be objected to be the petitioner. Like wise, two rooms on the first floor are with one Bal BahadurKumar for his studio and he is a tenant there under the respondent. After accounting for the rooms occupied by Ashwani Kumar and Bal Bahadur Kumar, it has been rightly concluded that the respondent is in occupation of one room, one deori and a verandah where he lives with his wife, his third son, daughter-in-law and grand-children, which accommodation in no circumstances can be considered to be sufficient for them. As such, I find that the learned Appellate Authority has rightly held that the requirement of the respondent for use and occupation of the premises in dispute is bonafide. This revision petition has, therefore, no merit which is consequently dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.