- (1.) Naranjan Dass, the tenant, has filed this revision petition against the order of Appellate Authority, Amritsar. The landlady Smt. Vidya Wati filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner before the Rent Controller on the ground that she needs the house for her own use. She also alleged in the application that she was married to one Ram Nath and that till two years ago she resided with her husband in East Africa as her husband was in the service of Great Britain and serving in East Africa that on account of some reasons they had to leave East Africa and make arrangement of their residence in Amritsar. That the demised premises were gifted to her by her father. It was also pleaded that she was not in occupation of any other building, nor she has vacated any in the urban limits of Amritsar. Notice was also issued to the tenant.
(2.) Her claim was contested by the present-petitioner and the allegations were controverted. The parties contested on the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the grounds, as alleged in paras Nos. 4 and 5 of the application 2. Whether a valid notice, if required under the law, was served on the respondent If so to, what effect. 3. Relief. The learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the tenant and against the landlady. On issue No. 2 no finding was given. The Rent Controller on the basis of the findings on issue No. 1 dismissed the application of the landlady. The landlady successfully challenged the Rent Controller's order before the Appellate Authority, hence this petition for revision by the tenant.
(3.) I have pursued the order of the Appellate Authority, Mr. Ram Singh Bindra, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed before me that the two requirements on which the eviction was sought for are not complied with. His contention is that the landlady did not require the premises for her own use and her claim is not bonafide, as she was already in occupation of the house of her husband. I do not find any merit in this contention. Admittedly, she is living in the house of her husband, but her husband's house cannot be considered as her own house in her own right. It is in her statement that the house where she is living is not enough for her use and occupation and that she has four sons, who have to come to India and live at Amritsar. This court in an earlier Judgment reported as Jaswant Singh v. Jai Ram Singh,1973 PunLR 9 held as under :- "That the application for ejectment of a tenant can only be not treated as bonafide if the landlord was in occupation of alternate accommodation in his own right, if not, it cannot be said that his application for ejectment of the tenant is not bonafide. It cannot be said that as the wife is in occupation of house belonging to her, the husband's application for ejectment of the tenant is not justified." Earlier in Civil revision No. 561 of 1959 decided on December 1, 1950 and in Chaman Lal v. Balak Ram Khanna, the same view was taken. In this case the father was living with his married sons and then the father made an application for ejectment of the tenant from his own house and it was held that it was a bonafide requirement and that he was not in possession of any house in his own right with his sons and was on their sufferance. No authority taking a contrary view is produced. No other point is urged, I am in perfect agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Appellate Authority.;