VED PARKASH Vs. PARKASH WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ved Parkash petitioner has filed the present revision petition directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 7.8.1996 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 18.5.1998. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner which had been upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondents Parkash Wati and Sharan Kumar had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner with respect to the suit property. The respondents claimed that they are the owners-landlords of the property and that the petitioner has not paid the arrears of rent from 27.12.1985. They asserted that they require the suit property for their own use and for members of their family. The accommodation presently in their occupation comprises of one room, one kitchen and two small rooms measuring 8 feet x 9 feet 4 inches on the first and second floor of the premises. The room in the adjoining building has gone, to the share of Rakesh Kumar s/o Faquir Chand on the basis of Will dated 31.10.1990, Respondent Sharan Kumar is, residing with his wife and four years school going daughter while Parkash Wati respondent is old and has three married daughters. The married daughters visit them occasionally. The sisters of Faqir Chand and that of Parkash Wati also visit them. Respondent Sharan Kumar is running a business and his customers and friends also visit him. The accommodation in their possession is totally, insufficient. Parkash Wati suffers from knee and joint pains in the legs. It is difficult for her to climb stairs and she, therefore, requires the ground floor of the premises. It is very inconvenient for her to live on the upper floor. The respondent are not, occupying any other residential premises. On these facts, eviction of the petitioner was prayed.

(3.) In the reply filed, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was disputed. It was denied that the ground of eviction, that the respondents bona fide require the property for themselves and members of their families, is available. It was pleaded that there is one building which has two municipal numbers. The respondents are in occupation of three big rooms alongwith store, bath-room, kitchen and flush latrine on the ground floor of the building No.B-IX-1147. They also have three big rooms, kitchen and bath on the first floor of the building No.B-IX-1163. Rakesh Kumar was stated to be doing business at Dasuya.