CHANDER BHAN, POSTMAN Vs. JAI PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition.

(2.) PESHU Ram son of Kanhaiya Ram was the owner of the house built in plot No. 9, Block-B, Tripuri Town, Patiala, which consisted of two rooms, one verandah and an open site used as courtyard. He sold the aforesaid house to his son-in-law and daughter (respondent herein) by means of registered sale-deed dated 15.12.1983, for a total consideration of Rs. 10,500/-. The respondents after purchase of the house, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (briefly "the Act"), for ejectment of the tenant (petitioner herein) on the ground of personal necessity. In the petition, it was claimed that the accommodation, i.e. one room, in their possession was insufficient for their requirement and therefore, they require the demised premises for their personal necessity.

(3.) THE Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition after finding that the sale-deed was executed by Peshu Ram in order to enable the respondents to create a ground for ejectment. Memorandum of petition was also found to be sham and paper transaction. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal of the respondents was allowed. The Appellate Authority took the view that the tenant is not entitled to question the validity of the sale deed. It also found that the respondents are in bonafide need of premises which consist of 2 rooms, one verandah and an open site used as courtyard. Before the Appellate Authority, the respondents also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, wherein permission was sought to produce additional evidence in order to show that the tenant who is in the employment of Post and Telegraph Department had been allotted a government accommodation. This application was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the availability of other accommodation to the tenant cannot provide a ground for ejectment to the landlord. However, the tenant was allowed two months' time to vacate the premises. This order is now being challenged by the tenant by way of present revision petition.