J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord Budh Singh filed the ejectment application on May 31, 1981, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applicable to Chandigarh (hereafter called the Act), on the allegations that the Respondent Rajinder Singh was the tenant under him on the ground floor of house No. 302, Sector 15 -A. Chandigarh, consisting of one dining cum -drawing hall, study room, bed room, store, kitchen and verandah and also a room on the first floor therein at the monthly rent of Rs. 320/ - exclusive of electricity and water charges since November, 1974. According to the landlord, he was previously running his business at Calcutta, but due to his old age; now he being about 75 years old, he along with his wife, had shifted to Chandigarh in January, 1981, with the intention to permanently settle here. His business in Calcutta was being run by his youngest son Ravinder Singh Sethi. At present, he had got no accommodation to live except a room on the first floor of the house, in question. In view of his genuine persona] requirement, he asked the tenant to vacate the demised premises, but instead of doing so he tactfully deposited Rs 350/ - in his Bank account in the Central Bank of Tndia, Chandigarh, as rent for the month of March, 1981, to which he had never agreed. The said amount was deposited by the tenant without his consent. When he became aware of it, he closed his Bank account. The tenant had also raised unauthorised construction on the ground floor without his consent. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the demised premises were a scheduled building within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act, as the same had been let out to him p]ly for running the office of Engineers and Architects and partly for residence. He disputed the genuineness and bona fide of the landlord's need of the demised premises. The learned Rent Controller found that the demised premises were not a Scheduled building as alleged. However, on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the same for his use and occupation, it was held that the landlord's shifting his residence from Calcutta to Chandigarh was not bona fide. The landlord and his wife were above 70 years of age arid it could not be believed that they would be living at Chandigarh away from the sons unattended. The landlord was in occupation of not one but two rooms as he had admitted that there was one improvised room which was used by him for sleeping. In view of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that from the evidence on the record it has been amply proved that the landlord has shifted from Calcutta to Chandigarh and now he wants to settle permanently at Chandigarh and for that purpose, he wants to occupy his own house. At present, the accommodation with him is very small and, therefore, in order to accommodate himself and his relatives who visit him from time to time since he has got five daughters, he bona fide requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation According to the learned Counsel, the whole approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wholly misconceived and, therefore, the findings arrived at by them are vitiated. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant -Respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide and this being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, the landlord had failed to prove that he had shifted from Calcutta to Chandigarh, by any cogent evidence, nor his desire to shifting from Calcutta to Chandigarh was bona fide. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Lakshmi Devi v. Mela Ram, 1982 (1) RL. R. 440, Mangat Ram v. Om Parkash, 1983 (1) R C. R. 30, Chitter Kumar v. Rattan Lal, 1983 (2) R C. R. 387 and Sohan Devi v. Parkash Chander, 1984 (1) R L. R. 112.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.;