R.N. Mittal. J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the order of Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated Jan. 30, 1978.
(2.) Briefly the case of the landlord in his application for ejectment was that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. The application was contested by the tenant who controverted the aforesaid allegation. The learned Rent Controller gave a finding that the landlord did not require the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. Consequently he dismissed the application for ejectment. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that he required the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. The tenant has Come to this court in revision.
(3.) The only question that arises for determination it whether the landlord required the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shrimati Pal Kaur was a tenant in a part of the house, comprised of four rooms-three rooms on the ground floor and one on the first floor. He argues that he filed an application for ejectment against Shrimati Pal Kaur and after she was ejected from the house, he occupied three rooms on the ground floor, but let out one room on the first floor. According to the learned counsel, this circumstance shows that he does not require the premises bona fide.;