Mathra Dass vs Kewal Krishan

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but was dismissed in appeal.

The landlord-petitioner, Mathra Dass, sought the ejectment of his tenant Kewal Krishan, Respondent, from the residential house, indisputs, situated in the urban area of Baruala, inter alia ON the ground that he bonafide required the tame for his own use and occupation. It was alto pleaded that except the two chaubaras which he was occupying for the time being, there was no ether accommodation with aim and that the said accommodation was insufficient for his purpose as hit family consisted of himself, six childrca, hii wife and his mother, besides the two married daughters. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondent, he controverted the allegations made in the eviction application On trial, the Rent Controller found that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation It was alio found that the accommodation already in his occupation was insufficient to meet the requirement of his family. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reverted the said finding of the Rent Controller as it was found that the landlord had no bonafide requirement in respect of the demised premises. As a result, the eviction order patted by the Rent Controller was set aside and the eviction application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

No one is present on behalf of the Respondent in spite of service.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the learned Rent Controller, after discussing the entire evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation, but the said finding has been reversed by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily end whimsically. Thus, argued the Learned Counsel, the finding of the Appellate Authority is vitiated.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

The approach of the Appellate Authority in coming to the conclusion that the landlord did not require the premises bonafide is wholly misconceived, wrong and illegal. It has acted on surmises and conjectures. In the eviction application, it was specifically stated that the premises, in dispute, had fallen to the share of the landlord; he said no other building in his occupation except the two chaubaras where he was residing for the time being and that the same were most insufficient for the requirement of his family which consisted of six children, bis wife and his mother. of course, out of the eight children, two daughters of the landlord are married, but still with his six children, his wife, and the mother, he lives in the two chaubaras which are hardly sufficient to meet his requirement. The approach of the learned Rent Controller, in this behalf, was perfectly correct. He has rightly come to the conclusion when he observed: " I unhesitatingly record a finding of fact that the applicant requires bonafide the demised house for his own occupation" As observed earlier, the learned Appellate Authority reversed this finding arbitrarily and on wrong assumption. According to the Appellate Authority, the chaubaras and the shop which are now in occupation of the landlord even previously used to he occupied for residential purposes by the landlord alongwith his brothers and his father Bansi Lal and that after the death of the said Bansi Lal the landlord now alone lives In the said residential accommodation. This according to the Appellate Authority, was sufficient to negative the claim of the landlord who he states that he bonafide require the premises far hit own use and occupation. This approach of the Appellate Authority is wholly misconceived lndisputably, the need of a family increases as the children grow it age. The landlord was living in two chaubaras only since 1962, Since then his family has increased and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, his requirement of the demised premises was bonafide Besides, nothing has been brought on the record to show that the landlord required the promises for any other purpose.

In this view of the matter, this petition succeeds and is allowad. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant-respondent is restored with no order as to costs However, the tenant is allowed two months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears, if any, and the advance rent for two months are deposited with the Rent Controller within a month.