RAM DASS Vs. SHRIMATI KAILASH WATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been filed by Ram Dass, tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated May 30, 1977. Smt. Kailash Wati and her children filed an application for ejectment of the tenant inter alia on the ground that they required the premises for their own use and occupation. The application was contested by the tenant. The Rent Controller held that the landlords required the premises for their own occupation. Consequently, he ordered ejectment of the tenant. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the latter. He has come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority to this court.

(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have got three rooms with them which are sufficient for their requirement. He further submits that the petitioner is a tenant in a barsati on the top floor. In the circumstances, he says, the application of the respondents is not bonafide. I regret my inability to accept the contention of the learned counsel. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority after going into the facts, have come to a finding of fact that the respondents required the premises for their own occupation. I have seen the plan of the property and also have gone through the judgments. I do not find any sufficient cause for upsetting the finding arrived at by the authorities below. I consequently confirm the same.

(3.) The second contention of Mr. Puri is that stair-case of the house fell on account of excessive rains in 1976 and he constructed the same by spending about Rs. 4,000. According to the learned counsel, unless the petitioner is re-imbursed to the extent of that amount, his ejectment may not be ordered.