- (1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Patiala dated 17th May, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application has been set aside and an order of ejectment has been passed.
(2.) The landlord filed an ejectment application against the tenant from the rented land situated in Patiala, on two grounds. Firstly, for non payment of rent and secondly, that the rented plot is required for his own use as he has no other rented land in his possession within the municipal limits of Patiala city for doing his business; nor he vacated any such plot. The claim of the landlord was contested by the tenant. It was pleaded that the plot in dispute was not required for personal use of Brij Lal landlord. On the other hand, it was alleged that the tenant has constructed a huge building with mud and pucca bricks by the money spent from his own pocket, with the consent of the landlord. Another plea was also taken that Brij Lal landlord was having one plot on Nambarkhan Road and another plot with built are a situated near Lilla Bhawan, New Patiala, when he is already running his business for the last 12/14 years. All the areas of rent with interest and costs were tendered on the first date of hearing, and therefore, this ground was non-est. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller :- 1. Whether the applicant required the disputed land for his own use and occupation if so, to what effect 2. Whether the applicant alone is not competent to file this application The Rent Controller dismissed the application for ejectment as he came to the conclusion that there was no bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own use and occupation of the rented premises. It has been observed by him that "In the course of evidence tendered in the court by the petitioner, it was nowhere indicated that any letter from his brother Amar Chand or his sons expressing their intention to start business on the rented land was ever received by him though he maintained the stand that the rented land was need by him and his Brother's sons for starting some business there and at one stage he contended that he himself alongwith others wanted to keep milch cattle for dealing in milk and milk products. The court without expatiating any more on the subject matter and tarrying any longer on this issue safely proceeds to click this issue hostile to the petitioner." In appeal this finding of the Rent Controller has been set aside and it has been held that the landlord is successful in proving the ground of personal necessity, which is sufficient for the ejectment of the tenant from the rented land. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the tenant has come in revision to this court.
(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the tenant-petitioner that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority is wrong and illegal, because it is no more a good law now that the landlord's settlement on the ground of personal necessity should be accepted as such and the Rent Controller cannot become judge of the need of the landlord. The landlord must take the court into confidence in order to prove his bonafide requirement, and thus, must bring the necessary fact on the record as to prove his need to be a genuine one. The learned Rent Controller, after going through the whole evidence, had come to a firm finding that the landlord was not coming to the court with clear hands, and, therefore, the application was not a bonafide one. In this respect, reliance has been placed in R.K. Jain v. Khazan Singh, 1980 82 PunLR 142.;