Viney Mittal, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner before this Court.

2. Landlord Jagdish Singh sought the eviction of tenant Harbans Lal from the demised premises. It was pleaded that the house in dispute had fallen to his share in an oral family settlement. It was further pleaded that he was working and employed at Tata Nagar, Jamshedpur for the last many years but his services had been declared surplus and as such he wanted to settle at Majitha and as such required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. It was claimed that he had no other property anywhere in India except the house in question nor he had vacated any premises after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The ejectment was also sought on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from June 1,1984 by the tenant.

3. The tenant contested the petition. He denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He claimed that Harbans Lal, who was the brother of landlord Jagdish Singh, was the owner of the property in dispute and the same was let out by aforesaid Harbans Singh to the tenant. Accordingly, he claimed that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between Harbans Singh and tenant Harbans Lal. He also contested the factum that the house in dispute had fallen to the share of landlord Jagdish Singh.

4. Since the arrears of rent were paid by the tenant on the first date of hearing, therefore, the aforesaid ground of ejectment was rendered infructuous.

5. However, the learned Rent Controller found that the premises in dispute had fallen to the share of landlord Jagdish Singh in the family settlement. It was also proved by the landlord that he was working at Tata Nagar, Jamshedpur but his services had been declared surplus with effect from March 15, 1999. It was also proved from the evidence that the landlord did not own any other house in the urban area of Majitha and had not even vacated any other house in the aforesaid urban area after the commencement of the. The need of the landlord to occupy the demised premises as found to be bonafide. Accordingly the tenant was ordered to be evicted.

6. The tenant filed an appeal before the learned appellate authority. The learned appellate authority reappraised the entire evidence. On such reappraisal, the learned appellate authority also found that the landlord had proved that his service had been declared surplus and as such he was discharged from service. It was also found that the statement of the tenant itself left no doubt that he had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On that basis, the learned appellate authority also affirmed the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller.

7. I have heard Shri S.K.Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and with his assistance have also gone through the evidence on record.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not proved and in any case the landlord having sought voluntary retirement from his service, it could not be claimed by him that he was declared as surplus in service. On that basis, it is argued that the requirement of the landlord could not be held to be bonafide.

9. I find myself unable to agree with the, aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. The learned appellate authority has specifically noticed the statement of the tenant who has appeared as RW3. On that basis, it is apparent that the tenant had admitted the aforesaid relationship between the parties. In view of the aforesaid admission, the tenant cannot be heard, now, to claim that there was no such relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

11. The factum of the landlord having retired from service is not disputed. The only contention of the tenant is that he had sought voluntary retirement. That fact by itself cannot be taken to mean that the landlord had no requirement to occupy the house in dispute at Majitha. Once he had proved that he was no more in service and wanted to settle in his home town, then it could not be held that the claim of the landlord was merely a wish or desire. In fact the evidence on the record shows that the landlord required the premises in dispute for his bonafide personal occupation.

In view of the aforesaid fact, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

No costs.