LAIQ RAM Vs. VIJAY AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This revision is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Shimla, dated 18-2-1998, whereby he has set aside the order of eviction of the respondent/tenant passed by the Rent Controller (1), Shimla, dated 16-3-1996, on the eviction petition under Section 14 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, hereinafter to be called "the Act", which was originally filed by the petitioner-landlord. By the said impugned judgment the Appellate Authority has in addition dismissed the said eviction petition of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner filed the petition under Section 14 of the Act against the respondent for his eviction from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement by him for his use and occupation and his family members. It was stated therein that besides himself the petitioner's family comprised of his wife, three sons and the wives and children of two of his sons, the remaining son being unmarried at that time. As per the petitioner's case in the eviction petition, he was in occupation of only two bed rooms, one drawing room, one dining room, a kitchen and a kitchen store in the upper storey of the building in question i.e. the demised premises, on the ground floor of which the respondent was a tenant. The petitioner's case was that the accommodation in his occupation was insufficient for his entire family inasmuch as one bedroom was required by him and his wife, three bedrooms were required for his sons and their families, to the extent that two of them were married having children, one bedroom was required for any visiting guests and additionally there was a requirement of one drawing-cum-dining room along with a study room for his grown up grand children who were school going. In other words, this was the minimum accommodation required by the petitioner as landlord for himself and his family members.

(3.) The respondent-tenant in his written statement pleaded that the petitioner was already in occupation of six rooms in the upper storey of the demised premises which were more than sufficient for him and his family members. It was further stated that only the wife of one of the sons of the petitioner by the name of Jagdish along with her children as well as the children of another married son of the petitioner by the name of Parkash were residing in the demised premises while the three sons and the petitioner as well as his wife were residing somewhere else. According to the version of the respondent in his written statement. Parkash was an agriculturist and was permanently settled at Kotkhai to look-after his land and orchard. The other son by the name of Jagdish was posted at Nalagarh. The third son whose name was Satish was also residing at some other place. The petitioner and his wife were stated to be residing in Kotkhai area. As per the respondent the motive and reason for filing eviction petition by the landlord was to raise the rent from Rs. 390/- per month to Rs. 1000/- per month. This demand having been made and not having been complied by the respondent-tenant, resulted in filing of the eviction petition.