SMT. SUMITTRAN DEVI Vs. SHRI SUDESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE controversy relates to a part of the residential house which was lei out to the tenant in the year 1975. One room, one kitchen and one store is in occupation of the tenant Sudesh Kumar. The tenant was inducted by the husband of the landlady who died somewhere in the year 1982. The husband was in service and was residing in Joginder Nagar, Himachal Pradesh After the death of the husband, the landlady shifted to her house at Pathankot, which at that time, was occupied by her brother in their absence. According to the landlady some portion was vacated by her brother and handed over to them. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. It was averred in the eviction application that she needed the accommodation under the tenancy of the Respondent for her personal occupation. Her children were grownup and the accommodation sought for was required to meet the needs of her family. The accommodation in her occupation was not enough to meet her need. The portion of the house, in possession of the landlady was shown in green colour in the plan attached in the ejectment application. A portion of the house, shown in yellow colour was said to be under the tenancy of her brother Karam Chand as his presence in the house was essential as the landlady was a widow and also because be was giving her more rent The tenant in his written statement controverted the allegations made in the ejectment application. The landlady also pleaded an agreement dated August 10, 1982, Exhibit A. 1, wherein the tenant had admitted the personal necessity of the landlady qua the demised premises To this, the tenant took up the pica that the said agreement was void having been executed under duress etc. and was contrary to the legislation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlady was not in need of the demised premises for her use and occupation. The agreement, Exhibit A. 1, was not relied upon in view of the judgment. Exhibit R. I., dated November 20, 1984, whereby the said agreement was held to be not enforceable in law. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rant Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant -Respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the landlady's need was not bona fide and that being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswami Chettiar : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253 and Rajbir Kaur v. M/s. S. Chokosiri and Co. : A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1845