J.V.GUPTA,J. - (1.) THIS is landlady's revisions petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but the same set aside in appeal.
(2.) SHRIMATI Kamalbir Kaur sought the ejectment of the tenant Baldev Raj from the residential house situated within the municipal limits of Gurdaspur, which was rented out at monthly rent of Rs. 30/- in the year 1981 when the same was purchased by the landlady from its original owner. The eviction was sought on the ground that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. Presently, she, along with her husband, was living in a joint house owned by her husband and his brother, Major Jaspal Singh, in village Alley Clak, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. On account of the partition, only one room has fallen to her husband's share. She was married in the year 1976, but she was not blessed with any child till then. Therefore, she and her husband adopted a daughter named in a who at the time of the filing of the eviction petition was one and a half years old (the eviction petition was filed on March 9, 1984). She was to be admitted to the school after about a year. There was no good school in the village. As such, she was to be admitted in a school at Gurdaspur. The amenities which are available in the towns were not available in the village. Therefore, she required the premises for her own use and occupation. She was not in occupation of any other house within the urban area concerned, nor she had vacated any after the coming into force of the Rent law. The ejectment application was contested on the ground that village Alley Chak was about two kilometres away from Gurdaspur where she and her husband owned considerable land. They also owned a tractor to look after that land. The family had to stay at the village where they were occupying a good house consisting of many rooms. It was denied that any partition took place between her husband and other members. Though it was admitted that the landlady had not given birth to any child, yet it was denied that she had adopted a daughter. According to the tenant, even otherwise also the child was too small to go to a school then. The landlady and her husband had been earning thousands of rupees through cultivation of land and if they shifted to Gurdaspur, the said land would be neglected. On the consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Controller found: "I do not think that the petition has been moved with any mala fide motive. The landlord has every right to ask for the eviction of a tenant if the same advances his convenience and comfort. It is common knowledge that in the changing society, environments in the towns are growing far more better than those obtaining in villages. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner needs the house, in question, for her own use and occupation." In view of this finding, eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlady did not require the premises for her own use and occupation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order of ejectment was set aside and the eviction petition was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this revision petition in this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority was erroneous and illegal. The learned Rent Controller could not go into the validity of the adoption of Ina by the landlady and her husband. The finding of the Appellate Authority to the effect that the whole version seems to be a created one for the purpose of evidence in these proceedings, is unwarranted and without jurisdiction. It was also contended that the requirement to occupy the premises was bonafide as the landlady and her husband wanted to shift to Gurdaspur for the better education of their child and on account of other amenities which were not available in the village.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority is wholly improper and illegal.;