- (1.) The landlady-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated 4th May, 1977, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant has been set aside.
(2.) The landlady sought the ejectment of the tenant from the house in dispute situated in Sector 18-C, Chandigarh, on the ground that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. In the application it was pleaded that the husband of the landlady Dr. Surdarshan Lal was employed as Chief Medical Officer, Bhiwani, and he was to retire on 30th April, 1975, and after his retirement the landlady had decided to shift to Chandigarh so as to settle in the house in dispute. The application for ejectment was filed on 18th February, 1975. In the written statement, it was pleaded that there is no bonafide requirement of the landlady and her husband has not yet given the requisite notice for his retirement and that such a plea of seeking premature retirement is just a farce to seek ejectment of the respondent.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the petitioner requires the building in question for her own occupation (2) Whether there was any agreement between the parties that one month's notice would be required for terminating the tenancy (3) If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the tenancy of the respondent was validly terminated (4) Relief. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner bonafide required the building in dispute for her own use and occupation and consequently, directed the ejectment of her tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority took the view that since no retirement of Dr. Sudarshan Lal, husband of the landlady, had taken place at the time of filing of the ejectment application, the application was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. He further observed that the landlady is at liberty to file a fresh application on account of change in circumstances and the case between the parties can be decided on new pleadings. Consequently, he accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the applications filed by the tenant for amendment of his written statement and for leading additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved against this, the landlady has come up in revision to this Court.;