P.C.Pandit, J. - (1.) .This order will dispose of two connected Civil Revision petitions Nos. 64 and 67 of 1968. Counsel for the parties agree that the decision in the former revision will govern the latter as well. So I will refer to the facts of Civil Revision No. 64 of 1968.
(2.) HOUSE No. 2962/2 is situate in Amritsar City and it was an evacuee property. In January 1965, it was purchased by Shrimati Chandravati, Petitioner, in an open auction for Rs. 6,000/ -. After the bid WAS confirmed, a sale -deed was executed by the Government in her favour in the month of February of the same year. Narain Das (Respondent in Civil Revision No. 64 of 1968) and Har Sahai (Respondent in Civil Revision No. 6/ of 1968) were the tenants under the Custodian of two separate portions of this house. In June 1965, Chandravati filed separate applications for ejectment against the tenants on a number of grounds, but, we, in this revision, are concerned with only two of them. Firstly, that the premises were bona fide required for the use and occupation of the landlord herself and, secondly that the house was unfit for human habitation and the landlord intended to rebuild it.
(3.) THE application was contested by the tenant on a number of grounds, which gave rise to the following issues: WHETHER there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? Whether the applicant requires the premises in dispute for bona fide use and occupation ? WHETHER the Respondent has committed such act whereby the value and utility of the premises has diminished ? WHETHER the Respondent by his act and conduct, has become the nuisance for the neighbourhood ? Whether the premises in dispute are unfit for human habitation and the applicant intends to re -build it ? WHETHER the Respondent is protected from ejecting for a period of two years under Section 29 of the Act 44 of 1954 ? The Rent Controller found that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the applicant required the premises in dispute for her bona fide u?e and occupation; that that applicant had failed to prove that the tenant had committed such acts whereby the utility and value of the premises had diminished; that the landlord could not establish that the house was unfit for human habitation or that she intended to rebuild its that the tenant by his act and conduct had not become a nuisance for the neighbours; and that thee tenant was protected from being ejected for a period of two years under Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. On these findings, the application for eviction was accepted, but it was directed that the eviction order would not be operative for two years from the date of the confirmation of the sate, i. e. 25th January, 1965.;