(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Salim Ahmed, hereinafter described as "the petitioner", directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 1. 4. 1992 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 20. 2. 1997. Both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had not allowed the claim of the petitioner.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that petitioner Salim Ahmed filed an application for eviction against Surjit Kumar Sahai respondent. The respondent-tenant is occupying two roomed accommodation with Kitchen, latrine and bath room on the ground floor of House No. 1891, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, on a monthly rent of Rs. 80.00 excluding water and electricity charges. Salim Ahmed petitioner had purchased the entire house. At the time when he filed the petitioner he was residing on barsati portion of the said house. The petitioner was seeking eviction of the respondent alleging that he bona fide require the property for himself and members of his family. Earlier the petitioner was residing in House No. 3185, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh, as a tenant. He was in occupation of two rooms and kitchen on the first floor. The owner of the house filed an application for ejectment on personal necessity because he had retired. An order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner vacated it on 24,4. 1989. Thereafter, he lived with his younger brother in Sector 32-C, Chandigarh. The petitioner shifted to one room on barsati after he purchased the said house. His family comprises of his wife and two sons and the accommodation in possession of the petitioner is totally insufficient for himself and members of his family. The other grounds of eviction does not survive and, therefore, no mention of same is made here.
(3.) LEARNED Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority held that the requirement of petitioner was not bona fide. Accordingly, the petition as such was dismissed.