LAXMI CHAND DUGGAL Vs. JAI INDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenants revision petition against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below ordering his eviction from the suit premises.

(2.) THE respondent -landlord petitioned the learned Rent Controller under Section 14 (3) (iv) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for an order of eviction against the petitioner herein from House No. 237/3 situated at Jail road, Mandi town consisting of one room, one kitchen and one bathroom on the third floor of the building. The eviction was sought under the Act on the ground that the petitioner herein had acquired a residential house LIG -57 in Bhiuli, Housing Board Colony, Mandi town allotted to him by the H.P. Housing Board on 2 1.2.1989. This accommodation according to the landlord was sufficient for the needs of the petitioner - tenant. The second ground urged was that the respondents - landlords have only two rooms in their occupation which are not sufficient for their need. The mother of respondent No.1 and mother -in -law of respondent No. 2 are not keeping fit, so she requires to stay with them.

(3.) IT is the interpretation of this provision on the facts established on record which is called into question in these revisional proceedings. Adverting to the evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller adverting to the evidence of RW2 Dr. D.K. Arora, concludes that the premises were reasonably sufficient for the requirement of the respondent -petitioner who was a bachelor. This accommodation consisted of one room, WC, kitchen which was sufficient for a single person, but not for a person with a family. The Court also holds that the respondent did not place on record the approved plan of the house. It was also established on record that the respondent -tenant -petitioner herein had acquired this house and sold it and no reasonable cause was proved on record as to why he restored to this step.