GIRWAR LAL Vs. OM PARKASH GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE previous owners of the demised premises were Babu Ram Brij Lal. They sold the same to Girwar Lal, landlord, vide sale deed dated August 23, 1971. The ejectment application was filed on October 27, 1977, primarily on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. A portion of the house, in dispute, was already occupied by him as a tenant prior to its purchase. It was pleaded that the present accommodation with him was insufficient for his requirement. It was also pleaded that he had not vacated any residential building, nor he was in occupation of any other residential building after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, except the portion in the house, in dispute. The tenant contested the eviction petition. He denied that the premises were bonafide required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. However, it was found by the Rent Controller that the premises, in dispute, were not bonafide required by the landlord. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellant affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the eviction petition. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the requirement of the landlord was most bonafide as his family consisted of his wife, two married sons and a daughter. The accommodation in his occupation in the residential building was insufficient to meet his requirement. According to the learned counsel, the Appellate Authority erred in considering the deorhi also as one of the rooms in occupation of the landlord. It appears that what weighed with the learned Appellate Authority was that there was nothing on the record to show that any of the child of the landlord was of a marriageable age or any of them was to be married soon. It has now been established by the affidavit dated April 11, 1983, filed in this Court that two sons of the landlord have been married during this period. Thus, taking into consideration the subsequent events, it is amply proved on the record that the landlord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and that the present accommodation in his occupation was insufficient to meet his requirement. In view of this affidavit, no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the tenant to show, that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide.