LAXMI CHAND Vs. RAM BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition in whose favour the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord, Laxmi Chand, sought the ejectment of his tenant Ram Bhagat from the demised premises consisting of the upper floor of the shop No. 24, MC Plot No. 1327, Section 13, Goushala Mandi, Panipat. The premises were let out to the tenant in the year 1978-79, but the rent note was executed on June 9, 1980. Rs. 275/- per month was the rent agreed to be paid. The ejectment application was filed on August 11, 1981, for the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises inter alia on the ground that the landlord required the same for the bonafide residence of his son Ramesh Chander who has married and was occupying no other premises for his residence in the Urban area concerned nor had vacated any without any sufficient cause after the coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. According to the landlord his wife, his married son and the his wife, two other sons who were students at that time and an unmarried daughter were living with him. Besides, his one married daughter usually visited to see the parents. As such the accommodation in his possession was insufficient for his requirement. In the written statement. The tenant denied the said allegations. He pleaded that about one and a half years prior to the eviction application, the landlord tried to take forcible possession of the demised premises. At that time, at the intervention of the police and the respectable, the rate of rent was enhanced from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 275/- per month. It was in these circumstances that the rent note, Exhibit A.1, was executed. It was denied that there was bonafide requirement of the landlord for his married son. The learned Rent Controller, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that there was personal bonafide necessity regarding the demised premises. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, dismissed the ejectment application. According to the Appellate Authority the rent note was executed in June, 1980 whereas the ejectment application was field in August, 1981. Therefore, the need of the landlord could not change unless there were some compelling circumstances.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the landlord-petitioner.