M.S.LIBERHAN,J - (1.) THE ejectment of the respondent-tenant was sought on the ground that the petitioner is a specified landlord and does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area and he intends to reside in the residential building in occupation of the tenant.
(2.) THE permission to defend was taken and the relevant defence taken was that the landlord had agreed to sell the demised premises vide sale agreement dated 23.8.1982 Exhibit R-1. However, a dispute arose with respect to the area. No sale deed was executed but the landlord accepted subsistence of the agreement dated 23.8.1982 and agreed to execute the sale deed by 31.12.1987. It was denied that the landlord was a specified landlord. The landlord denied the execution of any such agreement and his agreeing to the subsistence of the alleged agreement of sale and extending the period for registration of the sale deed by 31.12.1987. It was stated that the agreement was a forged document created by tampering the rent receipt issued by the landlord.
(3.) THE Rent Controller found that landlord to be a specified landlord. The Rent Controller further found that in view of writing Exhibit A-19 and agreement Exhibit R-1 alleged to have been executed between the parties, the landlord does not require the demised premises bonafidely and that there was no bonafide need of the landlord with respect to the disputed premises for his own occupation or that of his family. The ejectment was refused.;