Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated May 13, 1975, whereby the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the present petitioner was upheld.
(2.) The petitioner got the house, in dispute, on lease from Shri Dina Nath Punj, respondent, as general attorney of Shri Goverdhan Dams, the owner of the house, by means of a rent note. dated April 3, 1963, on a monthly rent of Rs. 30.00. The eviction petition was filed by the said general attorney under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and the eviction was sought on a number of grounds including the ground that the landlord Goverdhan Dass required the premises, in dispute bona fide for his personal occupation. The petitioner contested the same. A number of issues were framed and evidence was led on both sides The claim of the respondent on all grounds except the one relating to the bona fide requirement was negatived by the Rent Controller. The conclusion having been reached that the landlord needed the premises for his personal occupation bona fide, eviction order was passed Appeal by the petitioner also did no, succeed. Hence the present revision petition.
(3.) It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent that Shri Goverdhan Dass, the owner of the premises in dispute, on whose behalf the house had been leased out to the petitioner was previously settled in Kenya where he retired from service. Thereafter, he settled in England. At the time of the filing of the eviction application, he was settled in England. The evidence of the landlord to prove the care regarding the bona fide requirement for personal occupation is based on the statement of Shri Dina Nath Punj, respondent, the general attorney of the landlord and the letter alleged to have been received from the landlord from Landon showing that he wanted to mettle in India. As against this the petitioner categorically stated in his statement that the landlord was permanently settled in England and had a British passport. No evidence has been adduced to contradict the assertion that the landlord had a British passport. According to both the authorities below, the fact that the landlord had a British passport did not stand in the way of his returning to India and to settle here after acquiring Indian citizenship. It was further held that the landlord was the final arbiter in the mattes of his desire and bona fide requirement to live in the premises which are rented out and consequently, the eviction order was passed in the peculiar circumstances of this case, these conclusions of the authorities below cannot be agreed to.;