LALIT MOHAN BHALLA Vs. GEETA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but eviction order was passed in appeal.

(2.) THE first floor of the residential building was rented out to the tenant in the year 1977 at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- apart from house-tax, electricity and water charges. The ejectment application was filed on April 20, 1983, inter alia on the ground that the landlady bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. Then, she was residing with her son Darshan Kumar who was given in adoption to Brij Lal about 12 or 13 years back. Accordingly, now, she along with other members of her family consisting of two sons, wanted to live separately in the premises, in dispute. It was also pleaded that two houses, bearing No. 416 and 417 had been allotted to the tenant in the Housing Board Colony, Sirsa by the Haryana Housing Board and, thus, as he owned his own houses in Sirsa town, he was liable to be evicted from the premises, in dispute. The tenant controverted the said allegations of the landlady. He denied that he was allotted two houses in the Housing Board Colony, Sirsa, as alleged. However, he admitted that Darshan Kumar was adopted by Brij Lal who was the father of Geeta Devi, the landlady. The Rent Controller, found that the tenant did not own any house in Sirsa town and that she (the landlady) did not require the premises for her own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed vide order dated September 12, 1986. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlady was residing with Darshan Kumar who was her son, but later on was adopted by Brij Lal, her father, in his house at his sufferance. If her relations with the wife of Darshan Kumar were not cordial, then her need of residing in the premises, in dispute, is quite bonafide. The Appellate Authority also observed that it will not be out of place to mention that the ages of her two sons, namely, Ram Nand and Krishan are 20 years and 22 years respectively and that she wanted to reside in the premises, in dispute, along with her two sons. This circumstance that her two sons are grown up also gives strength to her need for living separately from Darshan Kumar etc. because in the present day of society, it is also difficult for the youngmen to live in the house of somebody at his sufferance. Consequently it was held that in view of the circumstances of the case, the landlady required the premises, in dispute, for her own use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on November 20, 1987.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.