Hari Chand and others vs Smt. Ratna Devi and others

R.N. Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by Hari Chand and Devi Chand tenants against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 13th August, 1982 ordering their ejectment.

Briefly the facts are that Babu Ram landlord filed a petition for ejectment on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. The petition was contested by the defendants who controverted the allegation of the landlord. The Rent Controller held that the landlord required the premises for his use and occupation. Consequently he ordered ejectment of the tenants. The Appellate Authority in appeal affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. The tenants have come up in revision to this Court.

During the pendency of the revision petition Babu Ram landlord and Devi Chand tenant died. Hari Chand petitioner No. 1 and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are the legal respresentatives of Devi Chand and Smt. Ratna Devi is the legal representative of Babu Ram.

Mr. Battas sought to support the judgment of the Appellate Authority on the ground that Smt. Ratna Devi, respondent No. 1, wants to go to Moga and stay in the house on account of some differences having been arisen between her and her son.

I have considered the argument but do not agree with it. Unless evidence is led that she required the house for her own use and occupation, the judgment of the Appellate Authority cannot be affirmed. In the circumstances the course open for the widow is to file a fresh application for ejectment and prove her case. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 cannot be ordered to be ejected in view of the situation which has arisen after the death of Babu Ram.

The counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the Civil Miscellaneous and the affidavit in support thereof filed by the respondent to the effect that she requires the premises for her own use and occupation. The allegations in the affidavit are not enough to prove the personal necessity of the widow. She has to plead the said fact in a petition and to lead evidence in order to establish her claim.

Consequently I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of Appellate Authority and dismiss the application for ejectment. No order as to costs.