IQBAL SINGH Vs. LACHHMAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The residential premises, in dispute, were let out by the landlords respondents to the tenant- petitioner for one year on Rs. 140 as rent on May 21, 1951. After the expiry of this period, the petitioner became a statutory tenant. The petition for eviction was filed by both the landlords-respondents against the tenant-petitioner, on the ground that Lachhman Dass, landlord-respondent, required the premises bonafide for his personal use and occupation. This ground was held to have been proved by the Rent Controller and the order of eviction was passed. The appeal by the tenant-petitioner before the Appellate Authority also failed. The present revision petition is directed against the order of eviction by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) According to the averments in the eviction petition. Lachhman Dass, landlord-respondent, was living at Sangrur and wanted to shift to Jaitu, along with his family, where the premises, in dispute, are situated. According to the further averments, the landlord-respondent had no other house in Jaitu. This petition was filed on May 13, 1970. The petition was contested by the tenant-petitioner and the evidence was adduced on both sides.

(3.) According to the statement of Lachhman Dass, A.W. 3 recorded on February 5, 1971, he had shifted to Jaitu Mandi one and a half years and was working as a Munim of one Des Raj. His family was living at Sangrur and the landlord-respondent wanted to shift them to Jaitu. It was further stated that he had no house of his own in Jaitu is for the purpose of residence and was spending nights with different persons there. In cross-examination, it was admitted that one house situated at Jaitu wherein his wife was living, was purchased by her. According to the evidence adduced by the tenant petitioner, this house had been purchased vide sale deed, Exhibit R. 1, dated June 27, 1966, from one Banarsi Doss. It was further deposed by Lachhman Dass, landlord-respondent, that one of his sons was employed in the Food and Supplies Department and one son and one daughter were getting education at Sangrur. His version was generally supported by Jiwan Ram, A.W. I, and Thakur Dass, A.W. 2. who were produced by him. According to the admission of Jiwan Ram, A.W. 1, he was related to Thakur Dass. A.W. 2. However, Des Raj, the alleged employer of Lachhman Dass, landlord-respondent, as a Munim, at Jaitu, was not produced. In his statement, Lachhman Dass, landlord respondent, had taken up the position that his relations with his wife were not good implying thereby that his wife was living separately. However, no effort was made to produce his wife in evidence or to prove by any satisfactory evidence that his relations with his wife were strained to the extent that they were living separately.