MOHINDER NATH AGGARWAL Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition had been filed by Mohinder Nath landlord against the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated February 22, 1974, dismissing his application for ejectment.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the landlord was owner of the property in dispute which was let out by him to Kuldip Singh respondent. He filed an application for ejectment inter alia on the ground that he required the premises for his own use. The learned Rent Controller held that a house of the landlord occupied by another tenant was vacated immediately prior to the filing of the petition and the same was given on lease by him to another person. He further held that the same portion was vacated by that tenant too during the pendency of the petition and it was again leased out by the landlord. Consequently, he held that the lardlord did not bonafide require the premises for his own use and occupation. In view of the aforesaid finding, he dismissed the petition for ejectment. The landlord went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority who affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller. He, however, did so, on a different ground namely that he was residing with his brother Dr. Harnam Dass and that portion was enough for him. The landlord has come up in revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is occupying one room in the house of his brother. He submits that therefore, he is at the mercy of his brother and he can be thrown out of the house at any time. According to him, in case the landlord is not occupying a house in his own right, he can gat his house vacated for his own bonafide requirement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in the circumstances of this case, it is not established that the petitioner required the house bonafide for use and occupation. He submits that if he wanted to live separately from his brother, he could occupy the other house which was vacated first, immediately before the filing of the petition and secondly, after the filing of the petition.