HANUMAN Vs. SOM DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ejectment of the petitioner was sought on a number of grounds, but was ordered on the ground that the demised premises were required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said finding contending that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and argued that in the ejectment petition it was averred that the petitioner did not own any other house in the urban area of Narnaul and he was living with his father as licensee. Since it was admitted by the landlord as A. W. 1 that the house in dispute was an ancestral house in which the landlord had a right to live, therefore, the finding with respect to the bona fide need cannot be sustained.

(2.) IT is further urged that no ejectment order can be passed since the landlord is occupying the premises within the urban area in his own right and he had not sought the ejectment on the ground that the premises in his occupation are not sufficient for his family. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner relies on Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, (1980) 82 P. L. R. 631 and Romesh Kumar v. Atma Devi and Ors. , 1985 (2) R. C. J. 566. There cannot be any dispute with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that in case the landlord is in occupation of a premises in the urban area, he cannot seek ejectment of the tenant unless and untill he can show that the accommodation in his occupation is not sufficient for his needs. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is not the case set up in the present case.

(3.) THE landlord specifically pleaded that he had a family constituted of himself, his wife and three children who were residing with his father and his family and there remains a dispute between his wife, his mother and father.