J.V.Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is on behalf of the landlord -Petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority Faridkot dated, 20th November, 1975, whereby the tenant's appeal was accepted and the application for ejectment was dismissed.
(2.) THE Petitioner landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949, for the ejectment of Ram Lok Respondent from a house situated in Moga. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the premises were bona fide required for his own use and occupation Certain other grounds were also taken, but the same are not material for the purpose of this petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the Kent Controller framed following issues: - 1. Whether the Respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground alleged in para No 2 of the petition ? OPP 2. What is the rate of rent filed between the parties ? OPP 3 Whether Madan Lal and Harbans Lal are the real landlords ? OPP 4. Relief. The learned Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment on the ground that the landlord bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation. Reliance was placed on an authority reported as Smt. Chandra Wati v. Narain Dass,, (1970)72 P. L. R. 299 In appeal filed on behalf of the tenant -Respondent the order of the Rent Controller Was been set aside and it has been held that the landlady has failed to prove her bona fide requirement for her own use and occupation It has been observed by the Appellate Authority that at this stage she cannot shift to Moga and live all alone in the house in dispute " The so called necessity It is a pretext to get the tenant ejected" It has also been observed In my opinion, it is an after thought that the landlady wants to shift to Moga to attend congregation in the Gita Bhawan" Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Appellate Authority the landlord his filed the present revision petition in this Court. The learned Counsel tor the Petitioner has contended that there is no rebuttal to the evidence produced by the landlord and in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal her statement that she wants the premises for her own use and occupation should have been accepted. According to him, the learned Appellate Authority has erred in reversing that finding of fact given by the Rent Controller It was further contended that the bona fide are not to be doubted unless there is evidence to the contrary In support of his contention he cited Shri Jetha Nand v. Shri Ram Chander and Anr., 1966 Car.L. J. (Pb.) 201 Nathella Sampathu Chetty v. Sha Vajingjee Bapulal,, (1967) 1 M. L. J. 289 and Manmohan Lal v. Guru Dutt,, 1975 R.L. J. 489.
(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. It will be a question of fact in each case whether the premises are bone fide required for own use and occupation by the landlord or not. Simply if there is no rebuttal is such it cannot be said that the statement of the landlord must be accepted and ejectment be ordered on that ground, it is for the authorities under the Rent Restriction Act to come to the conclusion whether the requirement of the landlord is a bona fide one or not. The learned Appellate Authority on the appreciation of the evidence had come to the conclusion that the requirement is not a bona fide one and the so -called necessity appears to be a pretext to get the tenant ejected. This is a finding of fact which may not be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;