GAINDA RAM Vs. SATYA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 1 of 1982 as the question involved is common in both the case.

(2.) THE landlady, Smt. Satya Rani, sought the ejectment of the tenant Gainda Ram in both these petitions. Since two portions of the building were rented out separately hence the two ejectment applications were filed. The ejectment was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the landlady bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation as the present accommodation with her was not sufficient to accommodate her family consisting of 10 members.

(3.) ON trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlady required the demised premises for her personal use and occupation and the same was bonafide. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. The Appellate Authority found "Thus looking from any angle, it cannot be said that the need of the landlady to occupy further rooms is not bonafide. That being the case the finding of the learned Rent Controller on this issue is also affirmed." Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has come in revision in this Court.