LAJWANTI Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of an ejectment order passed by the authorities below on the ground of subletting.

(2.) THE landlord claimed that the premises in dispute were leased out to Lajwanti wife of Kashmiri Lal at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The ejectment was sought on the grounds of nonpayment of rent, personal necessity and sub-letting. Lajwanti was alleged to have shifted to village Kotuwala near Jalalabad and possession of the premises was alleged to have been handedover to Balkishan. The tenant controverted the claim of the landlord. Shifting to village Kotuwala was denied; Balkishan was stated to be the son-in-law of Lajwanti and it was averred that he used to stay with them on his visits. The physical exclusive possession of Balkishan over the premises was denied.

(3.) THE authorities below came to the conclusion that the house was not needed for personal necessity and the rent had been tendered. These findings have not been challenged. The authorities below further finding that Balkishan who was residing with Lajwanti in the premises in dispute was employed in the Punjab State Electricity Board and had a separate ration card held that the tenants had failed to prove the case set up by them viz. Balkishan used to stay only on his visits to his in-laws. It was, therefore, assumed that the premises in dispute were sub-let and ejectment order was passed.