Smt. Kaushalya Devi vs Shri Hans Raj

Ashok Bhan, J.—Kaushalya Devi landlord-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ''the landlord'') filed an application before the Rent Controller, Kaithal, for eviction of the tenant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ''the respondent'') from the premises in dispute on the plea that she is the owner of the premises which are in occupation of the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 12/- on the ground of personal necessity. According to the landlord, she was also in occupation of the premises at Kaitnal belonging to her husband. As she was not on good terms with her husband, he had desired her to evict the same and, therefore, she wanted the premises in dispute for her personal occupation. She sought eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal necessity. Other grounds were also taken up but the same were not pressed before the Rent Controller and therefore, not'' adjudicated upon by the Courts below and hence no reference is being made to the other grounds taken by the landlord

The tenant in reply denied the allegations and alleged that the house where the landlord was living was ancestral and was not required to vacate the same and, therefore, she had no necessity to occupy the premises in dispute after evicting him.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :-

Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the grounds in para 3(b) (c) (d) of the application? OPA.

Relief.

The Rent Controller found issue No. 1 in favour of the landlord that the premises in dispute were required by her for her personal necessity and ordered eviction of the tenant. The tenant filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller before the Appellate Authority, who accepted the appeal, ret aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition. The landlord, under these circumstances, has filed the present revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and find no substance in this petition.

The landlord stepped into the witness box in support of her case. No other witness was examined by the landlord to corroborate her case. It has been stated by her that she needs the premises in dispute for her occupation as she and her husband were not pulling on well. In the cross examination, it has been admitted by her that there had been no litigation between husband and wife. It has not been stated by her as to for how long, they had been married. It has been further admitted by her that she was living with her husband at the time of filing of the petition So, from the evidence on record, it cannot be held that the relationship between husband and wife was strained or her husband wanted his wife to leave the premises which were in her occupation. Husband of the petitioner has not stepped into the witness box. So, in my view, the Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that no ground of eviction of the tenant from the demised premises and its occupation on the ground of personal necessity has been made out by the landlord.

Finding no merit in this revision petition, I dismiss the same with no order as to costs.