LAWS(P&H)-1984-5-123

CHANDER PARKASH Vs. ISHAR SINGH

Decided On May 24, 1984
CHANDER PARKASH Appellant
V/S
ISHAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom eviction has been ordered by both the authorities below. The landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant from a portion of a house consisting of one room owned by him, inter alia, on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was alleged that he had three children and a wife; that his sons are to be admitted in the College and are to get education at Chandigarh and that at present, they were living at Mohali. The tenant contested the petition on the ground that the period of five years since the sewerage connection was granted to the landlord had not expired and, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was also pleaded that the ground of personal necessity was not genuine. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord bonafide required the premises in question for his personal use and occupation. It was also found that the tenant had admitted that he has been allotted a house by the Housing Board Chandigarh and thus, he has become the owner thereof but in spite of that he did not want to shift there since, according to him, it was not suitable for him. As a result of these findings, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the ejectment order. Aggrieved with the same, the tenant has filed this revision.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. On the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently held by both the courts that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. Primarily, it being a finding of fact, could not be challenged in revision jurisdiction. Apart from that, the tenant admitted that he has got his own house allotted to him by Housing Board and instead of shifting to that house he let out the same to a Constable and preferred to remain in the demised premises which consists of only one room. Thus, the conduct of the tenant speaks for itself. In this view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The tenant is, however, allowed two months' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for two months is deposited by him with the Rent Controller within a fortnight.