M.S.LIBERHAN,J - (1.) THE ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was sought on the ground that the demises premises are required by the landlord for his own occupation inasmuch as he is living in the chaubara of first floor as a licensee of his father and that accommodation is not sufficient for his living. Apart from this, the father does not want him to live in that chaubara. The only defence taken was that the landlord has purchased the demised premises from Bhagirath Kumar in collusion with him and to defraud the tenant of his tenancy rights. Apart from this, various other technical pleas were raised.
(2.) THE Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide and there was no mala fide. It was further concluded that the appellant did not own or possess in the urban estate any other premises in his own right. He was living at the mercy of his father in one room, kitchen and bath-room. Father does not want him to live there any longer because of tension between the ladies. It was further found that the demised premises were purchased bonafide for the self-occupation. No impropriety or illegality has been pointed out in the said finding. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since it has not been stated how much accommodation the landlord was occupying and the any averment made was that the accommodation is not sufficient for him; his need or requirement to occupy is not a bonafide requirement and ejectment order can be passed. He relies on Kewal Krishan v. Smt. Janki Devi, 1982 Punjab Law Reporter 113 RCR 336, as well as Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 613 RCR 592. The facts of the two cases cited are entirely different inasmuch as in those cases, the question was about the sufficiency of the accommodation available with the landlord. Here the case of the landlord is that he is not in occupation of any other premises. The question of sufficiency of accommodation or the number of rooms being occupied are irrelevant in this case. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that he is living at the mercy of his father who does not want him to continue in that room and that fact has been believed. I find no impropriety in the same. Additionally, the parties were directed to file affidavits with regard to the fact whether the landlord is in occupation of any other premises in the town with a view of the ascertain that the landlord was or was not in occupation of any other premises in the town nor he was vacated any after 1947. The respondent-landlord has filed an affidavit categorically denying that he owns or possess any building at Karnal or in Haryana except the demised premises purchased by him for his and his family's residence. The fact has not been controverted. In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, I find no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is granted three months' time to vacate the demise premises subject to the condition that the arrears of rent are paid with in one month. Petition dismissed.;