SURJIT SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord Surjit Singh sought the ejectment of his tenant Balbir Singh from the demised premises consisting of two rooms and a courtyard which was rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- in June, 1979. The ejectment application was filed in the year 1982 inter alia on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. According to the averments made in the ejectment application, his wife was a chronic patient and he needed the premises for her treatment at Sangrur whereas he was at present living in village Udhawal, Tahsil and District Sangrur. He further stated that he had not vacated any other premises in the urban area concerned, nor he was in occupation of any other building. The tenant controverted the said allegation and pleaded that he did not require the premises bonafide for his use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that :- "However on perusal of the evidence led by the parties and on consideration thereof, I find that the applicant has successfully been able to prove the ground. It has been stated by all the witnesses examined by the applicant, namely, Bhag Singh A.W.1, Gurdial Singh A.W.2, Bachan Singh A.W.3 and Surjit Singh, Applicant, A.W.7 that Ishar Kaur, wife of Surjit Singh is sick for the last 10/12 years. Earlier she was admitted in the C.M.C. Ludhiana and thereafter she has been getting treatment from Patiala and now the applicant wants her shifted to Sangrur in order to get her medically examined." The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord was then residing at village Udhawal and the demised premises were situated in Sangrur and that the necessity of the landlord regarding the requirement of the house, in dispute, was quite natural. According to him, it was well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority took the view that the nature of the disease from which Shrimati Ishar Kaur suffered does not require her check up regularly and her stay at Sangrur as she was suffering only from skin disease in the year 1967 and from some knee-pain at the time of the filing of the ejectment application, which according to it was not sufficient to seek the tenant's ejectment. According tot he Appellate Authority, the landlord's wife could get treatment while staying at her home and getting medicines administered herself. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order was set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that there was no cogent evidence on the record to prove that the wife was suffering from any disease at the time when the ejectment application was filed. According to the learned counsel, Surjit Singh, landlord, admitted as A.W.7 that his wife had recovered from the illness when the tenant was inducted in the year 1979. Moreover, village Udhawal where the landlord was staying then is on the roadside and the bus service is very common there. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the requirement of the landlord could not be said to be bonafide as found by the Appellate Authority.