The suit premises are a residential building companystructed by the landlord respondent in the year 1961 in the city of Moga.
The appellant, with all his experience acquired in the services, thought of trying his luck as a companysultant advisor in customs and central excise matters and hence shifted to the industrial township of Ludhiana.
The appellant spends time with them and stays quite often at Canada.
At one time he had a mind of purchasing or renting in suitable accommodation but at the end he had given up the idea and decided finally to settle in Moga and live peacefully in the suit premises of his own.
He retired and lived in the suit premises with his wife upto 30.4.1982.
On 27.7.1996, the Rent Controller passed an order for eviction of the respondent.
Admittedly, he has numberother premises of his own available for his residence anywhere else.
On 1.11.1986, he acquired status as a permanent resident in Canada.
The appellate authority once again, by order dated 19.1.1999, dismissed the tenants appeal.
The respondents refused to purchase the property.
On 6.7.1999, the tenants revision was allowed by the impugned order.
He further stated that he had three sons.
His wife too was in a fragile state of health and Moga provided adequate medical facilities to take care of the wifes health apart from the warmth of affection and nearness of friends and relations and old acquaintances.
Thereafter I changed my mind and I made up my mind to live at Moga since I companyld number live at Ludhiana.
On 16.1.1990 and 21.2.1990, the appellant wrote two letters to the tenant respondent which letters spell out the parties negotiating for sale and willingness of the appellant to sell the house to the tenant.
Admittedly, the negotiations failed.
The requirement of the landlord, as pleaded and proved, was found worth entitling the landlord to an order for recovery of possession over the tenanted premises, in the opinion of the two companyrts below the High Court.
The suit premises are the only premises owned by the appellant.
None of my daughters is number living at Ludhiana.
Two of them were well settled with their families and living away from him.
He was a member of Indian Revenue Service.
On 1.5.1982 he let out a part of the suit premises to the tenant respondent.
On 14.6.1991 the landlord initiated proceedings for the eviction of the tenant respondent alleging that he had grown old and was number in a position to companytinue the profession of companysultant advisor.
The negotiations did number mature.
The appellants statement was recorded by the appellate authority.
By the time the litigation travelled up to the High Court and came to be decided by the impugned order dated 6.7.1999 about 8 years had elapsed in between.
On 29.9.1997, the appellate authority dismissed the tenants appeal.
I made up my mind that I was number to sell the house at any companyt to anyone.
In November 1989, he let out an additional portion of the building to the same tenant, i.e. the respondent.
J U D G M E N T C. Lahoti, J. An order for eviction from residential building on the ground of requirement of the landlord for his own occupation passed by the Controller and upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority has been upset and reversed by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
On 14.6.1991, proceedings for eviction were initiated.
The aggrieved landlord is in appeal by special leave.
