MADHO SINGH Vs. SMT KRISHANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlady sought the ejectment of his tenant, inter-alia, on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation and also for the members of the family. It was further pleaded that the present accommodation with her was not sufficient as to accommodate her family and other persons dependant upon her. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant. It was denied that the landlady bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation or for the accommodation of her family and other persons dependant upon her. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that two rooms in occupation of the landlady, at present, were insufficient particularly when she wanted to accommodate the family of her husband's deceased younger brother's widow and children. It was further found that there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the landlady. Thus, it was found that the landlady bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. As a result of this finding eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant had filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) At the time of motion hearing it was submitted that the family of the landlady consists of herself only and for her residence two rooms and two kitchens were sufficient and there was no provision in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) for getting another residential premises vacated for the need of her husband's younger bother's widow and three children. In view of the said admission note, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in order of eviction could be passed against the tenant on the ground that the landlady wanted the premises for the occupation of her husband's younger brother's widow and three, children. In support of this contention he referred to Smt. Parkash Kaur vs. Smt. Narinder Kaur, 1979 1 RCR(Rent) 238 AND Krishan Lal vs. Joginder Nath Mehra alias Jagan Nath Mehra, 1981 83 PunLR 245.