- (1.) This is a petition filed on behalf of tenant against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 30 September, 1977, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment has been maintained.
(2.) Landlady, Leela Wati, had sought the eviction of the tenant Ram Dass Loomba from the demised premises which constitute two rooms and one kitchen of a residential building, on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay rent since 1st November, 1970, at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month and that the landlady requires the demised premises for her own use and occupation. On the first date of hearing, the tenant tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. The tender was accepted under protest. In the written statement it was pleaded that the rent fixed per month was Rs. 20/- and not Rs. 70/- as claimed by the landlady. The bonafide requirement of the landlady was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller farmed the following issues :- 1. Whether the settled rent between the parties is Rs. 70/- p.m. 2. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the ground mentioned in the petition 3. Whether a valid notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act has been served on the respondent On issue No. 1, the Rent Controller found that the rent agreed between the parties was Rs. 70/- per month and not Rs. 20/-, as alleged by the tenant, and, consequently, the tenant was held to be in arrears of rent and the tender made was not a valid on. On issue No. 2, it was held that the landlady bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment application was allowed. In appeal, the learned, Appellate Authority has reversed the finding on the issue No. 1 and it has been held that the rent fixed was Rs. 20/- and not Rs. 70/- per month. As such the finding that the tenant was liable to eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent was set aside. On the question of bonafide requirement of the landlady, the finding of the trial Court has been maintained. Reliance in this respect has been placed on Chandra Wati v. Naraian Dass, 1970 72 PunLR 299, in which it has been held that the landlord was the sole arbiter of his requirement. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) No one has appeared to contest this petition in spite of personal service. Even in appeal before the Appellate Authority, one was present on behalf of the landlady-respondent. The learned counsel for the tenant has contended that this finding of the Appellate Authority that the landlady bonafide requires the premises for her own use and occupation, is illegal and improper and Chandra Wati's case , relied upon, is no more a good law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in Phiroze Bananji Dassi v. Chandra Kant H. Patel and others, 1974 AIR(SC) 1059 . I find force in this contention. Even in the notice given by the landlady before filing the ejectment application, she has not stated any reasons as to her bonafide requirement of the premises for her own use and occupation. It is well settled by now that more desire of the landlord is not sufficient to order ejectment. It is for the authorities under the Act to find out whether the requirement is bonafide or not. From the evidence on the record, it is difficult to come to conclusion that the landlady has proved her bonafide requirement.;