SUKHDEV RAJ Vs. KAUSHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Sukhdev Raj landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant Smt. Kaushalaya Devi from the house in dispute on the ground that the bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. According to the landlord, the premises were let out to Kaushalaya Devi at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. Shri Ram was the owner of the demised premises. After his death Sukhdev Raj being his son became the owner/landlord qua the tenant Smt. Kaushalya Devi. Thus, there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was pleaded that he had got two sons and two daughters who are of marriageable age and living in the same accommodation while he himself was suffering from T.B. for the last more than three years. He further stated that he was living along with his family in House No. 247 which consists of three rooms, one store and a Barsati, which is insufficient for his accommodation. In the written statement the tenant controverted the said claim and pleaded that the petition has been filed with the mala fide intention just to harass her. The landlord has also filed many other petitions against his tenant as he is owning many houses in Kalka. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord required the house in dispute for his bonafide requirement and for the family members and he has not vacated any such residential building since 1947. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller primarily on the ground that the landlord has got vacated other premises from other tenants also and, therefore, he has sufficient accommodation for his own use and occupation. Consequently, eviction order was set aside.

(3.) At the time of motion bearing, it was contended that the order of ejectment obtained by the learned against the other tenants has been reversed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them.