SURINDER SINGH Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground that the premises in dispute were needed by the landlady for herself, her husband and for her son. It was stated that she needs her son to be educated at Jullundur, she intended to occupy the premises and to live permanently at Jullundur, on the retirement of her husband from the Army, who has been discharged being a heart patient.

(2.) THE respondent controverted the averments and denied the requirement of the premises is dispute by the landlady either for herself or members of her family. It was also disputed that she had no residential accommodation or that she had not vacated one. Even the site plan of the tenanted premises was disputed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of ejectment in this revision petition on the ground that the statement of Lt.Col. M.S. Pawar, P.W.1 who appeared as husband and Mukhtar of the landlady, had been misread inasmuch as the authorities below failed to take notice of the fact that neither the landlady, nor her husband nor any of their children was residing at Jullundur. It is further stated that there is nothing on the record to show that the accommodation already in possession of the landlady in the disputed premises is insufficient. It is further contended that according to the ejectment petition, the son of the landlady wanted to seek admission in M.A. (Geography) in the D.A.V. College, but there is no M.A. course in this subject, in the said college at Jullundur. Moreover, there is no question of seeking admission at Jullundur now as her son would not be waiting since May 1985 when the ejectment application was filed till the date of this revision petition for getting the said admission. In the grounds of this revision petition, it has been further pleaded that better medical facilities are available at Patiala and, therefore, the requirement of the landlady for getting her own house at Jullundur is not bonafide. No other ground has been urged either in the revision petition or during the course of arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner has preferred an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to lead additional evidence for bringing on record the subsequent events viz. (i) that son of the landlady had joined Army for whose education the premises was needed, (ii) the husband of the landlady has shifted from Patiala to Chandigarh and occupied House No. 218, Sector 36A, Chandigarh and they are settled permanently there and do not require the premises in dispute any more. They are running a business of polythene items in Chandigarh. The husband of the respondent has sold a plot within the municipal limits of Jullundur at a distance of one kilometre from the demised premises. The respondent's father-in-law owns a house at Mithapur which consists of 8 rooms and the said house is at a distance of 2 kilometres from the demised premises and only father-in-law of the respondent is residing in the said house and but for him, the entire house is lying vacant. The husband of the landlady took extension in the job after his retirement. It is stated that these facts are necessary to be taken note of for proper decision of the case and as these did not exist earlier the petitioner could not produce any evidence to prove them.