- (1.)This is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.)The landlord Jaman Dass purchased in public auction the building in dispute on 19.10.1964. A portion of this house was on rent with Matwal Chand, the predecessor in interest of the tenants at monthly rent on Rs. 7.19 on behalf of the Custodian Evacuee property. The landlord filed ejectment application on 2.12.1971. The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground that the landlord required the tenanted premises for his bonafide use and occupation. The portion already in his possession was sufficient for his needs. Besides, the landlords own family consisting of his wife and five children, his two brothers were also residing with him in this building. In the written statement the tenants controverted these allegations. It was pleaded that the landlord was having sufficient accommodation for his family and the portion of the house in their occupation could not be vacated for the families of his brother who were separate in business and residence. The learned Rent Controller found the need of the landlord to be bonafide vide order dated 1.5.1973 and passed the eviction order. The Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding but set aside the eviction order on the technical point that no notice was given terminating the tenancy. In revision this Court i.e. Civil revision No. 164 of 1974, decided on 21.9.1979, the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for the fresh decision after allowing the necessary amendments in the ejectment application as necessary ingredients of section 13(iii) were not pleaded. Now this time the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord has failed to prove that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed on 31.3.80. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of the landlord to occupy the demised premises was most bonafide. Apart from the families of his two brother, who were living with him, he has his own family consisting of his wife and five children. Out of his five children, two sons were of marriageable age now. According to the affidavit dated 28.8.1984, filed in this Court, Suresh Kumar and Mohinder Kumar, his sons, are of 26 years and 24 years respectively and are of marriageable age and are to be married in the near future. The ejectment application was filed in the year 1971 i.e. about 13 years back. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the accommodation in their occupation was insufficient even to meet the requirement of the landlord's own family leaving aside the families of his brother.