J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is landlords' revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.
(2.) THE landlords Sudarshan Kumar and Smt. Satya Wati sought the ejectment of their tenants from the rented land by filing the ejectment application dated 22nd April, 1974. Originally, Girdhari Lal was the tenant who was inducted in the year 1959 on a rental of Rs. 400/- per annum. After the death of Girdhari Lal, his widow, daughters and sons became the tenants on the rented land. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the rented land was bonafide required for doing business by the landlords. They did not have any such other land in their possession in the urban area concerned, nor had they vacated any such land; and that the tenants had sublet or transferred the tenancy rights in favour of respondent No. 12, i.e. Satish Kumar. In reply to the said ejectment application, the tenants denied that the landlords bonafide required the rented land and that the premises had been sublet to Satish Kumar, as alleged. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion :- "In the instant case, the respondent-tenant has not led any evidence to show that the application has been made with some ulterior motive. The applicants who are not in possession of any rented land after the commencement of the Act without sufficient cause, are to be held in bonafide need of the rented land in dispute as Sudarshan Kumar applicant who is in a position to run the foundry, intends to start foundry business at Amritsar which is admittedly the main market of the said business and there is a safeguard for the tenant that if he does not occupy the rented land within the prescribed period, he is entitled to claim the possession back from the landlord". On the question of subletting as well, the finding was that respondent No. 12 Satish Kumar was a sub-tenant on the premises, in question, and was not a direct tenant under the landlords, as claimed. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on June 15, 1978. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed both the findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that neither the landlords bonafide required the rented land for their use and occupation, nor the same had been sublet to Satish Kumar, as alleged. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside vide impugned order dated November 13, 1981. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view taken by the Appellate Authority with respect to the bonafide requirement of the landlords was wholly erroneous and improper. It has acted on surmise and conjectures whereas the Rent Controller rightly concluded that the landlords bonafide required the premises for doing their foundry business. According to the learned counsel, though the premises were let out as far back as in the year 1959, but the landlords never claimed enhanced rent, nor sought their ejectment therefrom till the ejectment application was filed in the year 1974. It was also submitted that the landlords are already doing foundry business at Tarn Taran of which Amritsar is the main market. Moreover, the tenants also carry on the same business in the demised premises and no mala fides have been attributed by the tenants in their reply. Thus, argued the learned counsel, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the requirement of the landlords has been proved to be bonafide and the landlords were entitled to the eviction order.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that primarily the conclusion reached by the Appellate Authority is a finding of fact and, therefore, the same could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Gurbachan Singh v. M/s Gainda Ram Parkash Chand, 1981(2) Rent Control Journal 98 and Siri Ram v. Air Com. Mahabir Chand, 1981(2) Rent Control Journal 445. According to the learned counsel, the landlords did not state in the ejectment application as to for what purpose the rented land was required by them. In the absence of such a plea, the view taken by the Appellate Authority was perfectly legal and no interference was called for.;