J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE tenant Petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the Appellate Authority Jullundur dated 3.6.1978, whereby the order of the learned Rout Controller, directing his ejectment was maintained.
(2.) THE rented premises is a house situated in Jullundur. The ejectment is being sough on the ground that the landlord bone fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller, after going through the whole evidence, came to the conclusion that the need of the land lord is a bona fide one. It has been observed that "the Petitioner has married daughters who often visit him. Thus all the circumstances discussed above, when taken together speak volumes in favour of the Petitioner that he requires the demised premises for his own and family members use and occupation and do indicate that his intention in the matter is genuine and bonafide." It was further held that the landlord has not vacated any building within the urban area of Jullundur as pleaded by him and also that he does not own any other house other than the premises in dispute. In appeal this finding of the Rent Controller has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It has been observed by the Appellate Authority that "the Petitioners appears to have been fair in narrating all facts Two rooms were with his (sic) which he got vacated and those are not in his possession, obviously two rooms would not be sufficient to meet his need. There is nothing to show that the accommodation with the Respondent would not be required by the Petitioner." Feeling aggrieved with this concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the tenant has come to this Court in revision. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any merit in his petition The learned Counsel for the Petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent finding arrived at by the two authorities below after going through the evidence on the record. Though it is a question of fact, I am satisfied that the need of the landlord is a bona fide one The argument of the learned Counsel is that he had shifted to Uttar Pradesh in the year 1964 permanently and is doing his business there, is itself sufficient to show that the need is not a bona fide one. I do not find any merit in this contention. Of course, the landlord himself has admitted that be had gone to Uttar Pradesh in the year 1964 with a mind to settle there permanently, but now he wants to come back to Jullundur to settle there. No one can object to the shifting of the landlord to his original place The only requirement is that whether he bone fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation or not. It being a concurrent finding, cannot be interfered with in this revision petition. Consequent this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant Petitioner it allowed one month's time to abate the premises provided all the arrears, if any and advance rent for one month, are paid or deposited within ten days;