SUDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. SATWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlords Sudarshan Kumar and Smt. Satya Wati sought the ejectment of their tenants from the rented land by filing the ejectment application dated 22nd April, 1974. Originally, Girdhari Lal was the tenant who was inducted in the year 1959 on a rental of Rs. 400/- per annum. After the death of Girdhari Lal, his widow, daughters and sons became the tenants on the rented land. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the rented land was bonafide required for doing business by the landlords. They did not have any such other land in their possession in the urban area concerned, nor had they vacated any such land; and that the tenants had sublet or transferred the tenancy rights in favour of respondent No. 12, i.e. Satish Kumar. In reply to the said ejectment application, the tenants denied that the landlords bonafide required the rented land and that the premises had been sublet to Satish Kumar, as alleged. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion :-

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that primarily the conclusion reached by the Appellate Authority is a finding of fact and, therefore, the same could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Gurbachan Singh v. M/s Gainda Ram Parkash Chand, 1981(2) Rent Control Journal 98 and Siri Ram v. Air Com. Mahabir Chand, 1981(2) Rent Control Journal 445. According to the learned counsel, the landlords did not state in the ejectment application as to for what purpose the rented land was required by them. In the absence of such a plea, the view taken by the Appellate Authority was perfectly legal and no interference was called for.