J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This is tenants petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but an eviction order was passed in appeal.
(2.) The present, ejectment application was filed on 18th Feb., 1982, in which the landlord Som Parkash sought the ejectment of his tenant Madan Lal from the premises in dispute described as H.No. 1923 situate in Street No. 15, Abohar. It was alleged therein that the said house was on rent with the tenant Rs.130.00 p.m. and the tenant had been in arrears of rent from 1st Oct., 1976 to 28th Feb., 1982. Another ground of ejectment claimed was that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation as the present accommodation with him was quite insufficient for his and his family members; that he was only occupying one chobara which was on rent with him; that he did not own any building in the urban area concerned except the premises in dispute. According to the, landlord, the demised premises was let out for residential purposes whereas the tenant had changed its user and was tethering his cattle there. The ejectment application was contested, inter-alia, on the ground that the rent was only Rs. 30.00 p.m. and not Rs. 130.00 p.m. as alleged. It was further pleaded that the building in question had been rented out for tethering cattle and not for residential purpose. It was categorically denied that there was any change of user as alleged. The requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises in dispute was also denied. The learned Rent Controller found that since the rent was paid as claimed by the landlord, the ground far non-payment of the arrears of rent was no more available to the landlord. On the question of bona fide requirement, the learned Rent Controller found that the ejectment could only bee ordered if the building was a residential one, since the demised premises was on rent for a non-residential purpose, i.e. for tethering the cattle, no ejectment could be ordered on that ground. It was further found that there was no change of user because the premises was given on rent for tethering the cattle, and not for residence as alleged. In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed.
(3.) In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion hat the premises in dispute was a residential building as there existed a bathroom and a latrine which were subsequently removed by the tenant and he started using the premises for tethering his cattle. According to the Appellate Authority, the tenant was earlier residing in the house in dispute, and later he converted the premises into a Nauhra for the purpose of tethering the cattle. As regards the bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises, it was held that the landlord was then living in a small room only whereas there were six family members of his, and, thus, the said rented accommodation with him was held to be insufficient. It was further found that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. In view of these finding, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition for revision in this Court.;