ROMESH KUMAR Vs. ATMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will deal with Civil Revision Nos. 412 of 1980 and 644 of 1981.

(2.) CIVIL Revision No. 412 of 1980 is at the instance of tenant who has been ordered to be ejected by the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority. To begin with, Atma Devi the property owner had filed an application for ejectment of the tenant. The tenant took up the plea before the Rent Controller that the tenancy had been created by her son Dharam Pal and as such Atma Devi was not the landlord who could seek ejectment. In the judgment of the Rent Controller, a finding seems to have been recorded that Smt. Atma Devi had needed the house on account of personal necessity, but since her son was held to be the landlord, her claim was rejected. The second time Dharam Pal, joining his mother as co-petitioner, sought ejectment of the tenant before the Rent Controller on the ground of personal necessity of his mother. The Rent Controller observed from her statement that she was living as a tenant in a rented house at Gobindgarh where the demised premises was situated. The landlord respondents have emerged successful in both the Courts below. Besides other grounds which have been pressed on behalf of the tenant-petitioner for non-suiting the landlord, one is based on the Division Bench judgment rendered by B.S. Dhillon and G.C. Mital, Jj. in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, 1980(1) RCR 592; 1980(2) ALL India Rent Control Journal 188.

(3.) ON the other hand a Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Sant Ram Das Raj Kalka v. Karam Chand Mangal Ram, AIR 1963 Punjab I, had the occasion to interpret sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (3) of section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Mehar Singh, J. (as the Chief Justice then was), observed as follows:-