- (1.) This is a tenant's revision again the concurrent orders of the Courts below ordering her eviction from the premises on the grounds of bonafide necessity of the landlord and sub-letting.
(2.) Thakar Naveen Chand filed an application for ejectment of Smt. Chhatar Kaur tenant from the house on the grounds of non-payment of rent, sub-letting, personal requirement and its becoming unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The allegations of the landlord were denied by the tenant and she pleaded that previously also an application against her was filed on the grounds of personal necessity and sub-letting which was dismissed in 1953 and the judgment in that case operated as res judicata between the parties on these two grounds. Some other pleas were also taken which need not be noticed in this judgment as they do not arise for consideration in this revision. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the petitioner bonafide requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation and is not possessed of any other residential building in the urban area of Amritsar and has not vacated any other building without sufficient cause after the commencement of Act 111 of 1949 2. Whether the respondent has sub-let the demised premises without the written consent of the petitioner 3. Whether plea of subletting is barred by Section 14 of Act III of 1949 4. Whether sub tenant is a necessary party to the present application If so, what is the effect of his non-joinder. 5. Whether applicant is only a co-owner of the property If so, whether other co-owners are necessary parties. 6. Relief. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found under issue No. 1 that the landlord, who was a professor in Chandigarh, retired on 3rd of Feburary, 1975, and wanted to shift to Amritsar to reside in the house in dispute and that all the ingredients for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity were established in the case. Under issue No. 2 it was held that the tenant has sub-let part of the premises without the written consent of the landlord. The finding under issue No. 3 was that at the time of the previous judgment rendered in 1953, there were different sub-tenants and the persons who were in possession now as sub-tenants were new sub-tenants and for fresh sub-letting the petition for eviction was competent and was not barred under Section 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. As regards the ground of personal necessity, it was found that earlier the house was owned by a number of co-sharers and in 1953 the ground of personal necessity was not established as couple of other houses were available in the town of Amritsar for the occupation of landlord. On the basis of the finding under issue No. 5, it was held by the Courts below that there has been partition in the joint family and the house in dispute came to the share of the landlord and since he owned only this house in Amritsar, on his retirement as a Professor from Chandigarh, he could have his house vacated at Amritsar in spite of the previous judgment of 1953 which neither operated as res judicata nor was a bar under Section 14 of the Act. In the result, both the Courts ordered ejectment of the petitioner against which she has come up to this Court in revision.
(3.) Shri Harinder Singh, appearing for the petitioner was not able to persuade to take a different view under issues No. 1 and 2 with regard to personal necessity and sub-letting as he was unable to point out any material on which a different view was possible. The grounds of personal necessity and sub-letting are clearly established from the unrebutted material on record and unless it is shown that the findings are palpably erroneous either on the basis of the material on record or in law, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent decisions of the Courts below Accordingly, I have no option but to uphold those findings.;