- (1.) The tenant-petitioner have filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 19, 1977 whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing their ejectment was maintained.
(2.) Tilak Raj filed an application for the ejectment of his tenants Mohinder Kumar and Manmohan sons of Rajinder Singh on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent; bona fide requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation; tenants having materially diminished the value and utility of the property and also misbehaved and used filthy language towards the landlord whenever he goes to demand the rent. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenants, it was pleaded that the landlord does not require the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation and he only wanted to enhance the rate of rent of the demised premises. They also raised a plea that the only object to get the demised premises vacated was to dispose of the same on good price as a vacant building gets better price in the market than the one occupied by a tenant. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord it was emphasised that he bad a house in Katra Dulo, Amritsar which he sold away as it had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that after the sale of the said house he started occupying two small rooms at Court Road, Amritsar as tenant which are not sufficient for his needs and he cannot live conveniently. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : "i. Whether a valid notice terminating the tenancy of the respondents was served ? 2. Whether the applicant requires the premises in question for his personal use and occupation bona fide ?" The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application as it came to the conclusion that the landlord required the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In appeal, the Appellate Authority framed the two additional issues, i.e. (i) whether the respondent landlord has not vacated without sufficient cause any other such premises in the urban area of Amritsar after the enforcement of Act III of 1949, and (ii) whether the premises were mainly let out for non-residential purposes? The necessity of framing these two additional issues had arisen because during the pendency of appeal an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made by the respondent-landlord seeking amendment of his application and pleading therein that he had not vacated any other premises in the urban area of Amritsar after the enforcement of Act III of 1949 without any reasonable cause. The findings of the Rent Controller on issue No. 2 has been affirmed in appeal. It has been further found on the additional issue that the landlord has not vacated without sufficient cause any other such premises in the urban area concerned after the enforcement of the Act and consequently dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved against this the tenants have come up in revision in this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that once it is proved that the landlord sold a house belonging to him vide sale deed dated Jute 20,1969, it will be deemed that he has vacated the premises in the urban area concerned without any sufficient cause. According to the learned counsel, since this was not specifically pleaded and, therefore, the requirements of section 13 (3) (a) (ii) have not been complied with. It was next contended that during the pendency of the ejectment application the landlord got possession of one room from Ram Ditta his tenant, another room from Gopal Krishan and third one from Mehar Singh though in different buildings and, therefore, it could not be held that the accommodation with the landlord is not sufficient for his needs. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord respondent submitted that it has been concurrently found by both the Courts that the requirement of the landlord for his use and occupation is bona fide and it being the finding of fact should not be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was further pointed out that the story of the tenants that the landlord had entered into an agreement for sale of the house in dispute has been found to be false, and, therefore, taking into consideration the conduct of the tenants, this Court should not interfere in this revision petition.;