J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
(2.) THE landlords Ram Saran Dass and Tilak Raj sought the ejectment of their tenants from the premises, in dispute, consisting of rooms kitchen verandah on the first floor and barsati on the second floor, which is a portion of the main building, situated in the main bazar, which was let out to Des Raj, deceased-tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20 in the year 1977. The original tenant Des Raj died in 1979 and after his death, the respondents are in occupation of the demised premises as tenant being heirs. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlords bonafide require the premises for their own use and occupation and the present accommodation in their occupation was insufficient to meet the requirements of their family. According to the landlord, Tilak Raj, and his family consists of himself, his wife and four children all of whom are studying in schools where as the family of Ram Saran Dass consists of his wife and four children, who are also studying in schools and colleges. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenants, it was pleaded that the landlords had sufficient accommodation for their residence and therefore the requirement was not bonafide and the same had been made with an ulterior motive, as they wanted to recover and increase the rent i.e. from Rs. 20 to Rs. 100 p.m. Moreover, Tilak Raj was in occupation of two rooms, kitchen, store and bath room on the ground floor. Earlier, the original tenant, their father Des Raj, had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the landlords, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the court-yard and during the pendency of that suit, the landlord converted the portion of the ground floor into non-residential and let it out on rent and the present application was brought as a counter-blast to the suit. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlords have failed to prove their bonafide requirements in premises in dispute and the site plan, attached with the application, was not correct according to the spot. As a result of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the learned Rent Controller with the following observations: "In a case, like the present, where the appellants have converted bath rooms into shops, shown the room as a cattle shed, a kitchen as a store room and also claimed the possession of a portion where their brother-in-law regarding which no plea was taken, their plea of insufficiency of accommodation cannot be accepted. Unfortunately for the respondents, their predecessor-in-title, namely Des Raj had brought litigation against the appellants Exhibits R-3 and R-4 are the copies of the judgment in the trial Court and the Appellate Court. They had lost that battle and the appellants wanted to teach them a further lesson for bringing out litigation by means of seeking ejectment. I reject the testimony of the appellants that their need were genuine and accommodation in possession of the appellants was insufficient......" Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed the present petition in this Court.
(3.) EARLIER , on behalf of the tenants, an affidavit of Smt. Janak Chawla, widow of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, dated 9th April 1986, was filed in the Court wherein it was stated that during the pendency of this litigation. Surinder Pal was one of the tenants in the building in dispute and was in occupation of three rooms and a kitchen. Now, he has purchased a separate house from one Leela Wati Chawla vide registered sale-deed dated 22nd October, 1984 and Surinder pal is living in that house. Thus, the said accommodation, earlier occupied by Surinder Pal, was now available to the landlord Tilak Raj. In reply to the said affidavit, the landlords filed the affidavit of Ram Saran Dass, dated 27th April, 1986. Therein, he admitted that Surinder Pal had purchased the house on the 22nd October, 1984 and had shifted to that house in the year 1985. However, according to the said affidavit, the accommodation vacated by Surinder Pal does not meet the requirements of the landlords. The premises, in dispute are required by them, as the present accommodation in their occupation was not sufficient to meet the requirements of both the families.;