S.S.SODHI,J. - (1.) EJECTMENT of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity warrants no interference in revision.
(2.) A reference to the material on record shows that the tenant Atam Chand Gaur was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises as far back as 1945. It was sometime in 1967 that this building was purchased by the respondent-Jogi Ram. Atam Chand Gaur continued in possession thereafter as a tenant under Jogin Ram until his death. His widow and sons are now living in the demised premises as tenants under Jogi Ram. Originally, Jogi Ram used to reside tat Kalanaur, but there is evidence on record to show that he has shifted and has been living in Rohtak since 1973-74. According to Jogin Ram, he has been living there in different rented premises. The premises now occupied by him consists of merely a room, kitchen and bath room, while belong to Santosh Bansal. He also proved the notice exhibit A/1 sent to him by A.W./1 Mr. M.L. Jain, Advocate calling upon him to hand over vacant possession to Santosh Bansal.
(3.) IT was plea of Jogi Ram that the accommodation available with him namely; that held by him as a tenant under Santosh Bansal, was sufficient for his needs. The landlord Jogi Ram also has living with him, his son who is of marriageable age. Besides this, it was said that he also has his two married daughters who visits him off and on. There can be no manner of doubt that the accommodation presently with Jogin Ram is insufficient for his needs.;