J.V.Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition filed on behalf of the tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority, Sangrur, dated 6th May, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, directing his ejectment, has been maintained.
(2.) AN application for ejectment has been filed by the landlord -Respondent against the tenant from a residential house, on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. This application was contested and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the Petitioner requires the house for personal use and occupation ? 2. Whether the application is mala fide ? Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? 3. WHETHER the application in the present form is not maintainable ?
(3.) The Rent Controller accepted the application of the landlord and directed the ejectment of the tenant, It was held by the Rent Controller that "taking into consideration the discussion made and authorities referred, I come to conclude thai applicant requires the demised premises bona fide for her use and occupation as accommodation already in occupation is just insufficient". An appeal against this order was filed by Wali Mohd., tenant, before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, Wall Mohd. died and his legal representatives, who are the present Petitioners, were brought on the record by the Appellate Authority. The finding of the Rent Controller that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for her own use and occupation, was maintained. Moreover, relying upon a judgment of this Court, reported Bakshi Chaman Lal v. Subhash Chand 1975 R C. R 366, it was observed, that "the question of bona fide requirement of the premises by the land lady is not to be gone into now. So the case need not be sent hack, nor the report of the Rent Controller need be called on the point, after allowing the amendment", These observations were made because the Petitioners contended before him that the landlady in her application has not mentioned that she has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rest Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, therefore, the case should be remanded on the ground. Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Appellate Authority, the Petitioners have come up in the revision to this Court.;