S.P.GOYAL,J. - (1.) THE house in dispute was inherited by the respondents from their father. They filed this application for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the same was required for the residence of Raj Kumar, the son of one of the landlady, Smt. Shanti Devi, respondent who intends to start welding work at Nawanshahr, where the said house is situate. The Rent Controller accepted their plea and ordered ejectment of the tenants. Its findings were affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated December 7, 1981 which led to the filing of this revision.
(2.) THE concurrent finding recorded by the authorities below is essentially a finding of fact but is sought to be challenged on the ground that there was no evidence to show bonafide requirement of the respondents, which necessarily implies the existence of an element of need, except the popular statement of one of the respondents, her son and the husband. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, urged that the authorities below have recorded the finding after taking into consideration all the evidence on the record and it was not open to challenge in revision. There is hardly any dispute at this stage on the facts found. The premises in dispute are stated to be required for the residence of Raj Kumar son of one of the respondents as he intends to start his work as welder at Nawanshahr. Prior to the filing of this application, admittedly he was residing for more than 4-1/2 years in Dubai and was stated to have come back permanently to settle at Nawanshahr. He was bachelor then and continues to be so till now as admitted by the counsel for the respondents at the bar. Out of the house in dispute, one room is admittedly in possession of the respondent Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of Raj Kumar who resides at Hoshiarpur alongwith her husband and other members of the family in their own house. The question as to whether on these facts it can be said that there was an element of need in the desire of Smt. Shanti Devi respondent and she needed the premises in dispute bonafide for her own occupation or the occupation of any of her family members.
(3.) IT was admitted at the bar by the learned counsel for the respondents, that Raj Kumar is now about 30 years old. He has worked in Dubai for more than 4-1/2 years and as such cannot be said to be a dependent on Smt. Shanti Devi in any manner. The premises can be got vacated for the members of the family of the respondents which would only include the dependent members. There is only one exception to this rule, namely, that the landlord can get the accommodation vacated if it is required for the occupation of his married son. The need of Raj Kumar, therefore, cannot be said to be the need of the respondents within the meaning of section 13(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Even if it may be accepted for the sake of arguments that the requirement of an unmarried adult son would be covered by the provisions of the said section, on the facts available on the record it is difficult to accept that Raj Kumar really intends to settle at Nawanshahr. If he had really intended to start welding work, there was no reason not to do so till now when one room was available for his residence in the house in dispute. Again, no reason has been stated as to why he wants to start at Nawanshahr and not at Hoshiarpur to which place he belongs and where he has all the facilities. It may also be mentioned that Hoshiarpur is a bigger town and district headquarters whereas Nawanshahr is comparatively a small town in district Jullundur. It is also highly doubtful if he would return from Dubai where the working conditions and emoluments are much better. The petitioners have filed an affidavit that when the petition was filed, Raj Kumar had left India and gone abroad. Although he has returned after staying abroad for about a year but this fact does show that he has no intention to return to India permanently and the case set up is just a pretext to get the house vacated.;