J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant petitioner against the order of the appellate authority dated April 25, 1979, where by the appeal filed on behalf of the landlord was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his application for ejectment was act aside.
(2.) The respondent is the owner and landlord of House No. 1251, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, whereas the petitioner is the tenant in a portion of the said house on the ground floor at Rs. 160 per month the ejectment is being sought on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. In it a application for ejectment it was pleaded that the wife of the landlord is a patient of mental depression, hypertension and chronic bronchitis and she has been advised frequent medical check up and also to get treatment in a specialised institution like P.G.I Chandigarh. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant Petitioner this requirement of the landlord was denied and it was pleaded that the object of the petitioner is to seek an enhancement in rent. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : "l. Whether the petitioner bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation ? 2. Whether the Petitioner does not occupy other residential building in the area of Chandigarh and has not vacated the one after the Rent Act in the area of Chandigarh, if the answer is negative, to what effect ? 3. Whether the tender is invalid and insufficient, as alleged ? 4. Whether the petition is not property signed and verified, as alleged, if so, its effect -
(3.) The Rent I Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the landlord has failed to prove his bona fide requirement for his own use and occupation. The evidence of the doctor who has appeared as P.W. 2 has not been disbelieved by the Rent Controller but it has been observed that itself is not sufficient to draw inference that the petitioner in fact wants to shift to Chandigarh. In appeal filed on behalf of the landlord, the Appellate Authority has reversed that finding of the Rent Controller and it has given a firm finding that no doubt in some of the letters aforesaid there is reference to the increase of the rent - But that fact per se is not sufficient to hold that the landlord does not bona fide want to shift to Chandigarh. In view of the changed circumstances, as already referred to above. I am of the view that the landlord bona fide wants to shift to Chandigarh primarily for better treatment of his wife and he bona fide, requires the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. Feeling aggrieved against this order the tenant-petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.;