BUDH SINGH Vs. RAM GOPAL BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE premises, in dispute, were rented out to the tenant Ram Gopal, on May 17, 1980, on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. The application for ejectment was filed on June 15, 1982, inter alia on the ground that the landlord required the premises for his two married sons, namely, Harjit Singh and Devinder Singh. Those two sons of the landlord were then residing with him in another house which belonged to his mother Shrimati Rukman Kaur. The accommodation in possession of the landlord was highly insufficient and he was to shift his two sons to the demised premises on vacation from the tenant, along with their wives and children. It was also pleaded that the said sons of the petitioner-landlord were not occupying in the urban area concerned, any other building as a residence, nor had they vacated any such building without any sufficient cause. In the written statement, the tenant denied that the landlord required the demised premises for the residence of his married sons. He also pleaded that the application was for partial ejectment and as such was liable to be dismissed. The learned Rent Controller found that it could not be held that the application was for partial eviction. It was found that the landlord required the demised premises for the bonafide need of his married sons. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on January 30, 1985. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord did not require the premises for his own use and occupation and that he had failed to prove that he needed the premises bonafide. It was also held that the eviction petition was bad for partial eviction. Consequently the eviction order was set aside.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises for the residence of his married sons, as the present accommodation was insufficient to meet his requirement. According to the learned counsel, the Rent Controller rightly found that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide, but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures. The whole approach of the Appellate Authority was wrong and illegal.