CHAUDHRY SUBE SINGH Vs. H.G. TRIGHATIA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord filed the ejectment application on September 28, 1984, seeking ejectment of his tenant on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. It was averred that the family of the landlord consisted of five sons and their families besides the landlord and wife. He was not occupying any other residential building except House No. 9, Sector 23-A Chandigarh, which is a Government house and that the landlord was required to vacate the said house on or before October 31, 1984. He had retired from the service on August 31, 1984. He further stated that his sons were grown up; married and also College going students. They required separate room for their stay and living. Thus, the petitioner required the whole of the demised premises to meet his bonafide requirement. In the written statement, the tenant controverted the said pleas. It was pleaded that now the said house had been allotted to Shri Randhir Singh Malik, the son of the landlord vide letter dated December 26, 1984 and, therefore, the landlord continues to live therein. It was further pleaded that at the time of the letting of the house, the landlord was staying in the Government house, No. 9, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh as that accommodation was allotted to him and the same accommodation now stands allotted to his son and in view of his own averments in the ejectment application, the landlord was living in that house and, therefore, the demised premises were no more bonafide required by him. The tenant also pleaded that the application had been filed with an ulterior motive to pressurise him to enhance the rent.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wrong, illegal and misconceived. According to the learned counsel, it was not necessary that there should be strained relations in the landlord's family and only then he can seek the ejectment of his tenant. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Budh Singh Sethi v. Rajinder Singh, (1987-1) Punjab Law Reporter 200. The learned counsel further contended that landlords' three sons are living in Chandigarh. Two of them are married and have got their children. One son is major and a College going student. There is one daughter as well who is grown up. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the accommodation in the Government house as such was not sufficient and in these circumstances, the requirement of the landlord to occupy the demised premises after retirement was most bonafide.