VINOD KUMAR Vs. BHU DEV PARSHAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition, whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord-Vinod Kumar sought ejectment of his tenant, Bhu Dev Parshad from the house in dispute, consisting of two rooms 9' x 10', 13' x 10', Kitchen 5' x 7', bath room 8' x 5' and the vacant land situated on both sides of the above-mentioned rooms. The landlord purchased the said house in the year 1976 for a sum of Rs. 27000/-. The ejectment application was filed on 11th September, 1979 on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1st July, 1976 to 31st October, 1979, and secondly the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was not occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Faridabad in his own right except the one occupied by him as a tenant consisting on one room 15' x 10' and a kitchen 3' x 4' which was insufficient to meet his requirements. According to the landlord, there are many members of his family who are living together in the said tenanted room. The father and the mother of the landlord are very old and infirm persons. He has got two grown up sisters of marriageable age.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities below have mainly relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi, 1980(2) R.L.R. 25 and have not given any findings as the whether the premises in occupation of the landlord as tenant is sufficient to meet his requirements or not. According to the learned counsel, even in the said judgment of the Division Bench, it has been observed that there is no bar in the way of the landlord if he can prove that the residential building in his occupation is insufficient to meet his own requirement. Therefore, the occupation of the other building must commensurate with the requirements or the needs of the landlord. According to the learned counsel, this aspect of the case has not been gone into by the authorities below and, therefore the finding arrived at is vitiated.