J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is landlords revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant Banarsi Dass from the barsati portion of the house, in dispute, on the allegations that the rent was Rs. 250/- per month; the tenant was in arrears of rent since October 1, 1981 and that they bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation as the ground floor of the building in dispute, in their possession, was insufficient to meet their requirement. The family of Sardara Singh, landlord, consisted of his wife and three children and his father Arjan Singh. In the written statement, the tenant pleaded that the rent was Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 250/- per month. The landlords never issued any receipt for the rent paid and, therefore, they had claimed the arrears of rent. It was pleaded that their requirement was not bonafide. The accommodation already in their possession on the ground floor was sufficient to meet their requirement. The learned Rent Controller found that the rent was Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 250/- per month. On the question for bonafide requirement, the learned Rent Controller concluded that the landlord did not require the premises, in dispute, for their own use and occupation and that instant eviction application had been brought just to pressurise the tenant to enhance the rate of rent. Consequently, the eviction application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appeal Authority affirmed the said findings of the learned Rent Controller and thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this revision petition in this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that from the evidence on the record, it has been amply proved that the rent was increased from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 250/- per month later on and, therefore, the finding of the authorities below in this behalf are wrong and illegal. The learned counsel further contended that in any case, the bonafide requirement of the landlords to occupy the demised premises has been amply proved on the record, but the approach of the authorities below being illegal, the said finding in vitiated. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 250/- per months and that the requirement of the landlords was not bonafide. According to the learned counsel, those are findings of fact based on evidence and, therefore, could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy, A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 1253.
(3.) I have heared the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.;