MAYA DEVI Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was sought on the ground that the demises premises are required by the landlord for his own occupation inasmuch as he is living in the chaubara of first floor as a licensee of his father and that accommodation is not sufficient for his living. Apart from this, the father does not want him to live in that chaubara. The only defence taken was that the landlord has purchased the demised premises from Bhagirath Kumar in collusion with him and to defraud the tenant of his tenancy rights. Apart from this, various other technical pleas were raised.

(2.) THE Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide and there was no mala fide. It was further concluded that the appellant did not own or possess in the urban estate any other premises in his own right. He was living at the mercy of his father in one room, kitchen and bath-room. Father does not want him to live there any longer because of tension between the ladies. It was further found that the demised premises were purchased bonafide for the self-occupation. No impropriety or illegality has been pointed out in the said finding.