PRITPAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by tenant Ranjit Singh against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Patiala, dated May 4, 1981, whereby the decision of the Rent Controller was reversed and ejectment order was passed against the petitioner in favour of the respondent-landlord Amarjit Singh.
(2.) AMARJIT Singh filed ejectment application against Ranjit Singh on the plea that he had let out a rented land to Ranjit Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and that he now requires the rented for his own personal use and occupation. Ranjit Singh while contesting the ejectment application denied the tenancy premises to be rented land. He contended that the premises containing three rooms and an open space had been taken on rent by him. He did not admit that Amarjit Singh requires the tenancy premises for his personal use. The rent controller although held that the tenancy premises are rented land, but came to the conclusion that the landlord has not been able to prove that his requirement of the same is bonafide. As a result of these findings the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal filed by the landlord the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller in respect of the tenancy premises being rented land. However, the finding on the personal requirement of the landlord was reversed and it was categorically held that the landlord does bonafide need the rented land for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the judgment of the Rent Controller was set aside ejectment order was passed in favour of Amarjit Singh directing the tenant Ranjit Singh to deliver possession of the rented land within two months. It was found that the tenant had made some construction on the rented land, therefore, he was ordered to remove the malba.
(3.) THE learned petitioner's counsel has raised two points for consideration. Firstly, the tenancy premises are not vacant land but three rooms and some vacant site and secondly that the landlord's requirement of the tenancy premises is not proved to be bonafide. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on these two points.;