- (1.) The landlord-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the 'Appellate Authority, Rohtak dated 21st December, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his application for ejectment was maintained.
(2.) The landlord-petitioner sought ejectment of his tenant from the house in dispute on the ground, inter alia, that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. This plea was contested by the tenant. After going through the entire evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord as it came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide one. This finding has been affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this, the landlord-petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I do find any merit in this petition. Prima facie bona fide requirement is a finding of fact and both the authorities below have concurrently found that the requirement of the landlord in the present case is not bona fide one. In any case, the landlord filed an ejectment application earlier on this very ground which was dismissed by the Rent Control vide Exhibit R.1, dated 2nd March, 1972. The present application was filed on 12th November, 1973. The only additional ground pleaded in this application is that there has been partition between the two landlord. This story of partition has not been believed by the authorities. The learned Appellate Authority has observed that : "............However, it is very strange that although a partition has taken place between the brothers, only this particular building has been partitioned whereas other property and business remains joint. Moreover, even in this building the appellant has chosen such portion most of which is with the tenants." In addition thereto, the Appellate Authority inspected the spot and Inspection Note dated 6th December, 1976, is on the record. In that spot inspection, it has been found that on the first floor towards the left there is a set of two rooms which was lying vacant excepting the two cots with beddings in one room. The landlord was unable to explain that how the present accommodation with him is not sufficient to meet his requirements. It is all the more so when his earlier application on this very ground was dismissed recently on 2nd March, 1972. Under these circumstances, no ground has been made out as to interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.;