- (1.) The scope of this Revision Petition is very limited. The petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute, on the ground that the respondent landlord is occupying another property as a tenant and she is thus, entitled to get her own house vacated. The Appellate Authority has relied upon Hari Kishan Dogra v. Arjan Singh, 1973 75 PunLR 658. The learned counsel for the parties however, do not dispute that a subsequent Division Beach of this Court has laid down the law differently as in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi, 1980 2 RentLR 25, by holding that the landlord is not entitled to eject the tenant from the house owned by him unless the house occupied by him (as a tenant) is unsuitable to his needs and requirements.
(2.) Considering the matter in the light of the above position, the eviction of the petitioner could not be ordered. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that in view of the changed enunciation of law, his client should be permitted to file a fresh petition for ejectment, on the ground that the property in which his client was at present staying as a tenant is not suitable to her needs and requirements This course is not objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the.revision Petition is allowed and orders of the authorities below are set aside. Toe respondent shall, however, be at liberty to file a fresh ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground as mentioned by her learned counsel.
(3.) In the circumstances of the cage, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.;