AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Punchhi, J.—This be read in continuation of my order dated 28 11.1980. The report of the Rent Controller Amloh, is comprehensive and detailed after framing two issues to the following effect: -
Whether the accommodation in possession of applicant No. 1 in the area of Gobindgarh was insufficient for his accommodation ?
Whether the applicant No. 1 has not vacated any building without any reasonable cause ?
tinder issue No. 1, in the finding recorded is that the Chobara which was in occupation of Atma Devi as a tenant was got vacated from her by Karam Chand (her landlord) about 21/2 years back and now she is residing as a licensee in the house of her brother-in-law's (Jeth) daughter's house at Amloh at the mercy of her niece Savitri Devi.
Under issue No. 2, the finding recorded is that Alma Devi vacated the Chobara of Karam Chand both on account of the dispute raised by her landlord as also on account of her feeling difficulty in climbing upstairs of the said Chobara because of her old age (she being 80 years of age.)
With the help of the learned Counsel for the parties, the evidence has been perused. The only argument advanced is that Atma Devi, a women aged 80 years, has no cause of living at Gobindgarh and that she has partnership with four other persons at Amloh. There is no averment anywhere that, but for the Chobara of Karam Chand, Atma Devi has been able to secure shelter anywhere except in her niece's house as suggested. She cannot be left to the mercy of her niece. Time has come to draw a finale to this longdrawn litigation. The tenant has thwarted her efforts for almost 15 years to have her house vacated for personal necessity. Her agony need not be prolonged any further. I hold it proved that the Respondents require the demised premises for the direct personal necessity of Atma Devi and in direct personal necessity of Dharam Pal in order to accommodate his mother. For these reasons, the revision petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties should bear their own costs throughout.
Since the tenant had enough breathing time after the report was submitted on 10. 9.1987, there is no need to grant him more than one month's time for vacating the premises.