J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The landlord Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, ludbiana(sic) dated the 18th April, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controlled directing ejectment of the tenant Respondent has been set aside.
(2.) The ejectment of the tenant from the premises, which is a part of residential house, is being sought on the ground of bona fide requirement by the landlord for his own use and occupation. In para 2(b) of the application, dated 3rd December, 1974, the landlord stated "that the accommodation in possession of the Petitioner is insufficient for this own use and for the use of other family members. The Petitioner is not occupying any other residential house in Ludhiana City and he has not vacated any such building without any sufficient cause. Therefore the Petitioner bonafide requires the premises in dispute for occupation and for the occupation of his family members'. In reply thereto the tenant stated, that "contents of sub para (b) of the application are wrong and denied The Petitioner is having sufficient accommodation for his own me and occupation and for the use of his family members The Petitioner is guilty of conversion of the residential premises into non residential one with mala fide intention and as such is not entitled to the relied claimed for. The answering Respondent is an aged man and he along with his aged wife is residing in the premises in dispute for a period of over 10(sic) years and it will be a great injustice with him if he is ordered to be evicted. The Petitioner is having mere than sufficient accommodation in his possession. The dispute only arose between the parties when the Petitioner undertook to extend water pipe to the first floor subject to the enhancement of rent and which was not subsequently done by the Petitioner. The Petitioner in fact wants to increase the rate of rent and does not bona fide required ire the premises". Thus, it was specifically averred that the landlord is guilty of the reversion (sic) of a part of the residential premises into non residential one with mala fide intention and as such is not entitled to the relief claimed In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord, these averments were not controverted as such. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: - 1 Whether the Petitioner requires the premises in dispute bona fide for his own use ? 2. Whether the Respondent is a statutory tenant ? 3 If issue No. 2 is not proved, whether a valid notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served ? The learned Rent Controller, on issue No. 1, came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation In appeal, this finding of the learned Rent Cant -roller has been reversed by the Appellate Authority. It has been observed therein that "On the other hand it has come in evidence of the Respondent Appellant that the landlord , has been leasing out the part of the premises on the repeated occasions The so called necessity alleged by the Petitioner Respondent has not arisen immediately on the presentation of the application. As such, it can be termed as another device on the part of Hans Kaj. Landlord to get the premises under the possession of Gori Shanker to be leased out to another person on a higher amount of rent " Feeling aggrieved against this order, the landlord has come in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the landlord Petitioner has vehemently contended that taking into consideration the large family of the Petitioner, consisting of two daughters, three sons and a wife, the accommodation is insufficient and landlord is the best judge of his requirements and since the tenant has failed to prove any mala fide intention on the part of the landlord, his need will be deemed to be a bona fide one and the finding given by the Appellate Authority is thus vitiated. It has also been argued that letting out a part of the premises by the landlord during the pendency of she litigation is of no consequence as his need is to be seen at the time of the application, when it was made. In support of this contention, he relied upon Labhoo Ram v/s. Seetal, (1968) 70 P. L R. 258, Hans Roj v/s. Shrimati Ram Piari,1973 P.L.R 256 and C. L. Devar v/s. Shri Amar Nath Kapur, : (1963)65 PLR. 644;