Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by Harbane Lal against the order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated Feb. 5, 1977, whereby his application for ejectment was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly the case of the landlord is that the respondent was a tenant under him on the 1st floor. It is alleged that the petitioner was 74 years of age and his wife was 65 years of age and they wanted the family of their son to be shifted from Simla to reside with them so that they may look after them in their old age. He also took other grounds for ejectment but they do not survive in the revision petition. He, consequently, filed an application for ejectment under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the tenant. The application was contested by the tenant who pleaded that the petitioner did not require the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation.
(3.) The learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner required the premises for his own use and occupation and consequently, he ordered the tenant's ejectment. He went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlord has come up In revision against the order of the Appellate Authority to this Court.;