RADHE SHAM Vs. KISHAN LAL

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.) RADHE Sham, landlord-petitioner, sought the ejectment of his tenant Kishan Lal, from the demised premises inter alia on the ground that the same were needed for his personal need. According to him, he was living with his mother in a house having insufficient accommodation. He also stated that he had got no other house and had not vacated any house without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The tenant controverted the said allegations. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation and consequently, passed the eviction order. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding primarily on the ground that the landlord cannot afford to be separate from this mother and in such a situation the two houses belonging to his mother virtually belong to him and he can make full use of them. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and going through the record, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The premises, in dispute, are house No. 2, whereas the house occupied by the petitioner's mother is house No. 1. That being so, it has been wrongly held by the Appellate Authority that the landlord cannot afford to be separate from his mother. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this situation does not arise. Moreover, it has not been held by the Appellate Authority that the accommodation with the landlord where he was living at present with his mother was sufficient to meet his requirement. That house consists only of two rooms; one is occupied by the mother whereas the other is occupied by the landlord whose family is comprised of seven members. Apart from that from the affidavit filed in this Court by the landlord deposing that the tenant has constructed his own house and is residing with his family members there, it is shown that the tenant no more requires the premises, in dispute, for his residence.