Devi Dass vs Mohan Lal

J.V. Gupta, J.—The tenant-Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, dated 3 th August, 1975, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment was maintained.

Jagiri Lal and Vasdev were joint owners of the entire building a portion of which was on rent with the tenant-Petitioner, on behalf of Jagiri Lal. The Respondent landlord Mohan Lal purchased the entire building from the said two owners by means of registered sale deed, dated 11th May 1972 The present application for ejectment was filed by him on 27th March, 1973, on the ground that he bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues.

Whether the Petitioner is the real owner of the premises in question by purchase from Jagiri Lal ?

2 Whether Jagiri Lal was the exclusive owner of the premises in dispute ?

3 Whether the Respondent is liable to the ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of himself and his family ?

4 Whether the tenancy of the Respondent has determined by a valid notice ?

Both the Rent Controller and as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the landlord Respondent is the real owner of the premises in question and the Petitioner is liable to ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord and his family. Against this concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the tenant-Petitioner has come up in revision petition to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the finding of the Authorities below on issue No. 3 is wrong and is illegal. According to him, earlier also applications for ejectment were filed by Jagiri Lal on this very ground, but the same were rejected The present sale by Jagiri Lal and Vasdev in favour of Mohan Lal, Respondent-landlord is not a bona fide one and has been made with an ulterior motive to eject the Petitioner. He further contended that the landlord is member of the joint Hindu family constituted by his father Jugal Kishore and others. Since the landlord is already in occupation of certain accommodation in the house owned by Jugal Kishore, he is not entitled to eject the Petitioner In any case according to him, the premises are not required bona fide for his own use and occupation

4 After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any force in his contentions. Both the Authorities below have gone into this matter and have also considered the evidence on record. It has been observed by the Appellate Authority that there is no material on the record to suggest that the house has been purchased by Mohan Lal for the joint family consisting of Jugal Kishore and others. It has been futher found that Mohan Lal is in occupation of one room only and it could not be held that he is in occupation of that house as of right Moreover, it is a finding of fact arrived at after the appreciation of evidence on the record and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in coming that conclusion.

No other point was urged.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.