J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord, Kanwar Lal Bhushan sought the ejectment of his tenant Pyare Lal (who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller), from the premises in dispute which consist of three rooms a verandah and a courtyard, situate in Ahata Manohar Lal. The said Ahata has 32 rooms out of which are occupied the premises in dispute by the tenant Pyare Lal. The ejectment application was filed on 23rd August, 1974, primarily on the ground that the landlord bonafide required them for his own use and occupation ; that at present he is residing at Delhi with his son when he retired from service on 23rd July, 1974, and that now, after retirement he wants to shift to Karnal and live in the premises in dispute himself. The application was contested on the ground that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide, and that he had not given any reasons as to why he wanted to shift from Delhi to Karnal when he was already practicing at Delhi, as also doing research there. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had failed to prove that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, it dismissed the application vide order dated 18th September, 1981. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller, thus maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application. Aggrieved with it, the landlord had filed this petition. It has been brought to my notice that the landlord filed twelve petitions against his tenants who were occupying different portions in the said buildings, Ahata Manohar Lal, belonging to him. All other 11 petitions were dismissed up to the High Court. The judgment of the High Court is recorded as Kanwar Lal Bhushan v. Satha Mal of Karnal, 1984 HRR 273. According to the learned counsel for the tenants/respondent, this petition could not be disposed of alongwith the said petitions because the original tenant Pyare Lal died meanwhile, and the service on his legal representatives delayed the proceedings. This petition, as such, has not been denied on behalf on the petitioner-landlord.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that after his retirement, the landlord wanted to shift to his native place at Karnal and occupy the demised premises, and, therefore, the requirement of the landlord was bonafide, and the findings of the authorities below in this behalf were wrong, illegal and misconceived.;