LAWS(P&H)-1984-12-65

SMT. SATYA RANI Vs. OM PARKASH

Decided On December 12, 1984
SATYA RANI Appellant
V/S
OM PARKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlady's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) Smt. Satya Rani, landlady, sought ejectment of her tenant, Om Parkash, from the demised premises which consist of a room in a residential building. The eviction was sought on the ground that she bonafide required the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation. It was stated that at present she was residing with her husband in a rented house which consists of a room and a kitchen and was insufficient for the accommodation of her family, consisting of 10 members. These allegations were controverted by the tenant in the written statement. The Rent Controller found that since the landlady had not produced the landlord of her house in which she was living as a tenant with her husband and therefore, in the absence of that evidence, it could not be held that the accommodation in her occupation was not sufficient for her purpose. In view of this finding the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus, maintained the order rejecting the eviction application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has preferred this revision in this Court.

(3.) After going through the relevant evidence on the record, particularly the plan Ex. A.3, of the accommodation which is occupation of the landlady at present as a tenant, I am of the considered view that the whole approach of the authorities below was misconceived. It is not denied that there are 10 members of the family of the landlady. She is living in a rented premises for the last 17 years. The latest son is of 24 years of age. Moreover, the house in dispute was purchased by her for comfortable living. Under these circumstances by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the accommodation, at present with her, was sufficient to meet her requirement. The observations of the Appellate Authority that since the landlady was living in the rented premises for the last 17 years, therefore, now it could not be said that her requirement of the premises in question for her own use and occupation was bonafide, are wholly misconceived. She took the premises on rent about 17 years ago when her family consisted of few members. By the passage of time, the members of her family increased and that is why she purchased the house in dispute wherein there are five rooms. Om Parkash tenant-respondent is occupying only one room. It has been stated the Bar that the landlady has also filed eviction application against the other tenants as well. Even from the circumstances of the instant case, it is amply proved that the requirement of the landlady to occupy the premises is dispute is most bonafide. The findings arrived at by the authorities below are liable to be set aside, as they are based on wrong assumption. It may be that the one room which is in occupation of the tenant-respondent Om Parkash may not be sufficient to meet the requirement of the landlady and that is why she has already moved eviction application against the other tenants which would be decided taking into consideration the requirement of the landlady. In this view of the matter, the revision petition succeeds. The orders rejecting the ejectment application are set aside and eviction order is passed against tenant-respondent Om Parkash.