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 Kishan Chand Verma sought the ejectment of his tenant, Hari Om Gautam, from the demised premises, on the ground that he had retired from the service on September 30, 1979, and after his retirement, he wanted to settle in his own house. He was living at Delhi. The landlord also stated that on room in the building was in his occupation which was not sufficient for his residence. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the premises in dispute, were not required by the landlord for his own use and occupation as he was already residing at Delhi in his own house. The learned Rent Controller, found that the landlord had no bonafide need to reside at Bassi Pathana as he had sufficient accommodation at Delhi. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court. During the pendency of this revision, the landlord moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4040-CII of 1986 under Order 6, rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of his ejectment application in view of the insertion of section 13-A to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985. Notice of the said application was given to tenant, but no reply thereto has been filed by him.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord was a Government employee and that he had retired from service on September 30, 1979. He had filed the ejectment application on May 11, 1982 as he wanted to shift from Delhi to his house at Bassi Pathana. According to the learned counsel the one room in the building, in dispute, was insufficient for his accommodation and, therefore, he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf, argued the learned counsel, is wrong, illegal and misconceived.;