Gappu Ram vs Mool Chand and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is tenant''s revision preferred against the orders of the Courts below ordering his ejectment.

In brief, the facts are that the ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of non payment of rent, personal necessity and also on the ground that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

The Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence found both the grounds in favour of the respondent and in consequence thereof passed an order of ejectment against the tenant. On appeal, the order of the Rent Controller was affirmed. This is how the petitioner has came in revision before the Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I am of the view that there is no merit in this Civil Revision, the ejectment of the tenant was sought from a small House No. 639, Mohalla Kayasthwara, Rewari. Respondent No. 1 has four sons, one daughter and a wife whereas respondent No. 2 has a son and a daughter, Respondent No. 3 and 4 they were to be married soon. Keeping in view the size of the family of the respondents, the Authorities below rightly found that the premises were required for the accommodation of the respondents, Counsel for the petitioner though contended that the respondents have sufficient accommodation in their possession but from the record I find that the accommodation in their possession is not sufficient for their requirement. Respondent No. 1 is occupying one room in House No. 169, Mohalla Kayasthwara, Rewari, which is an ancestral house l/3rd share consists of only one room which is in possession of Sohan Lal, brother of respondents. Apart from this, there is no other accommodation in possession of the respondents. Thus, I am of the view that the demised premises are required for personal necessity by the respondents.

Though counsel for the petitioner tried to impugn the findings of the authorities below with regard to the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, yet I need not go into that finding Because I am confining to the order of ejectment passed on the ground of personal necessity.

Consequently, this civil revision is dismissed. On the oral prayer of counsel for the petitioner, three months time is allowed to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,080/- with the Rent Controller on account of future rent to be paid to the respondents. Respondents were entitled to withdraw and adjust the same towards future rent. After adjustment, if any rent is lying in excess, the same shall be deposited with the Rent Controller by the respondents within a period of three months from today.