RAJ KUMAR Vs. MAJOR GURMITINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act filed by the tenant against the decision of the Appellate Authority confirming on appeal the order of the Rent Controller evicting him from the premises in dispute.

(2.) ON 30th of May, 1967, Major Gurmitinder Singh Grewal filed an application under section 13 of the Act for the eviction of his tenant, Raj Kumar, from a residential house situate on College Road in Ludhiana. His allegations were that he had let out the house to Raj Kumar on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/ - for a period of six months by means of a rent note dated 18th of June, 1965 The tenancy expired on 30th of November, 1985 and thereafter the tenant had been asked several times to vacate the premises. The landlord was a member of the armed forces of the Indian Union and was serving under war conditions and the house was required for occupation by his family. The refusal by the tenant to vacate the house had resulted in great hardship and inconvenience to the family of the landlord.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, only one issue was framed in the case, namely whether the respondent (tenant) was liable to be evicted on the grounds mentioned in paragraph Nos. 2 to 5 of the application. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The tenant has, consequently, come here in revision. After discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent had recently married and he genuinely needed the house for the residence of his wife. The wife of the landlord had no independent accommodation for living and under those circumstances, the claim of the landlord for the eviction of the tenant was bona fide. The learned Judge has further found that in the beginning, the father of the respondent was the landlord, but subsequently it appeared that the house came to the share of the respondent in some family arrangement and that is why the tenant accepted him as landlord in June, l965. It was true that the brother of the respondent had corresponded with the tenant on behalf of the landlord in 1963 that he wanted to sell the house if a good offer was received, but the respondent became the landlord in 1965 and thereafter when he was going to get married he wrote a letter, Exhibit P -5, to the tenant that the latter would have to vacate the house for the accommodation of his wife and that he did not want to sell the same. The certificate of the Commanding Officer to the effect that the respondent was serving under war conditions in the army as required under the Act, was also duly produced by the respondent.