J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 23rd Jan., 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, directing the ejectment of the petitioner was confirmed.
(2.) The premises in dispute, is a house situated In the city of Patiala. A portion of the said house was being occupied by the landlady as tenant earlier whereas in the other portion, the petitioner was the tenant, under its original owner Smt. Rattan Devi The landlady. respondent purchased the whole house on 26th July, 1971. On that basis, the present application for ejectment on the ground of personal use and occupation was filed on 10th May, 1972. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the landlady-respondent bona fide requires the disputed premises for her own use and occupation.
(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that the landlady has failed to prove that the accommodation in her possession is insufficient for her. According to the learned counsel, the husband of the landlady is in occupation of another house, though it is adjace not the house in dispute, and, therefore, under these circumstances, it could not be held that the accommodation in their possession was insufficient. It was also contended that the landlady-respondent had turned one of the rooms in her possession into a shop and thus the present application was not a bona fide one.;