Ajay Kumar vs Krishan Kumar and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.

Ajay Kumar, landlord purchased the building in dispute from its earlier owner Suraj Bhan vide sale deeds dated 15th February 1977 and 4th April 1977, for a total sum of Rs. 47,000/-. The said Suraj Bhan had initially inducted on 1st January 1965 the respondent as tenant in the portion in dispute of the said house, which consisted of three Chaubaras, one courtyard, one kitchen and one bath room on the first floor at a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-. On 21st May 1979 Ajay Kumar landlord who was unmarried, filed an ejectment application against the tenant-respondents inter-alia on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was further alleged that he was not in occupation of any residential building in the urban area of Barnala, nor had he vacated any such premises without sufficient cause after the enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The tenants denied that the landlord had any bonafide personal requirement in respect of the premises in question, or was not in occupation of any other residential house in the urban area concerned. According to the respondent, the landlord was not only in occupation of the ground floor portion for his residence of the building in dispute, but he was also in occupation as joint owner with his father of another residential building at Barnala. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord was not in occupation of any other residential building in the urban area concerned, nor did he vacate any such residential building without any reasonable cause. Thus, the requirement of the landlord was held to be bonafide. Consequently, eviction order was passed against the respondent.

In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller. According to the Appellate Authority, the landlord was admittedly unmarried and his elder brother, concededly, was living jointly with his father. Since the plan of the house in the accommodation of his father and the petitioner was not filed as to indicate the extent and dimension of the house in their accommodation, it could not be held that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was also found that the ground floor which consisted of 3 rooms in the building in dispute, can also be considered to be sufficient for accommodation of the landlord. In view of this finding the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

Pending the revision petition, the landlord filed an affidavit dated 28th May 1984, to bring to the notice of the Court the subsequent events. It was stated therein that his marriage had taken place on 4th May 1984 after the same his wife is living with him in the house of his father where both of them are living with great difficulty because the accommodation in the said house is insufficient. It has been further stated that the said house belong to his father and that the accommodation therein, for the whole family of his father, consisting of his father, his mother, his married elder brother and his wife and their minor daughter, is hardly sufficient for the members of the family Krishan Kumar tenant also filed his affidavit dated 19th July 1984, in reply thereto. The factum of the marriage of the landlord is not denied. However, it was stated therein that the house in which the petitioner is living with his father and brother is also ancestral property and consists of six rooms, 2 kitchens, 2 toilets on the first floor and 2 rooms, one verandah and one toilet on the second floor and that two rooms on the first floor have been constructed and added in February, 1984.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the fact that the landlord has married pending the revision petition and that the accommodation in the house belonging to his father was insufficient the need of the petitioner was bonafide. Moreover, argued the learned counsel the landlord purchased the house for a huge amount of Rs. 47.000/- in order to occupy the same for his comfortable living and not only for a rental of Rs. 45/- per mensem that was hardly commensurate even with the interest on the said amount. In support of his contention reference was made to Jetha Nand v Ram Chander (1966) 68 P.L.R. 377, Kirshan Lal v. Ram Singh 1968 C.L.J. 132, and Smt. Chandra Wati v. Narain Dass (1970) 72 P.L.R. 299. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenants vehemently contended that there was no evidence of any partition between the father and the sons and since the accommodation in the said ancestral house was sufficient, the requirement of the landlord could not be said to be bona fide one.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide one. The learned Rent Controller, after discussing the entire evidence, had given a firm finding that the landlord required the demised premises for his own use and occupation and his requirement was bona fide; that he was not occupying any other residential house and has not vacated such a house without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings arbitrarily on the ground that the landlord was admittedly unmarried. He and his elder brother were living jointly with their father. The father of the petitioner has appeared as AW-6. He has categorically stated that the landlord has no joint property with him and that the building in question was purchased by the landlord for his own residence. Of course, in cross-examination, he admitted that the house in which he was living was ancestral and it came to him in partition, amongst the brothers. Be that as it may, the accommodation in the said house was insufficient for his two married sons. What has weighed with the Appellate Authority was that the landlord petitioner being unmarried, his requirement was not bona fide.

Since petitioner''s marriage has taken place pending the revision petition and the accommodation in the said ancestral house, in which his father and elder married brother are living under the circumstances was not sufficient, as to debar him from claiming eviction of his tenants from the premises in dispute which he has purchased for his own independent residence by spending a huge amount of Rs. 47,000/-. Being a married and independent person, the petitioner-landlord was entitled to separate residence unless it was proved that the ejectment was sought on any ulterior motive, particularly when it was also found by the Rent Controller that the accommodation in the house belonging to his father was insufficient.

Further, in his context, reference was made on behalf of the tenant to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi (1980) 82 P.L.R. 613, to contend that if the landlord is in occupation of any other building, even as a tenant or otherwise, the landlord is not entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant unless it was further proved that the said accommodation was insufficient to meet his requirements. Of course in order accommodation the claim of the landlord to be bona fide, as contemplated u/s 13(3)(b), this will be one of the considerations, but not the only consideration. In a given case, if the landlord, who has purchased the demised building for living independently of his father''s family, will be entitled to evict his tenant, even if it may be proved that accommodation in the father''s house or which is a joint family property, was sufficient to accommodate him, i.e. the landlord. It is so because the landlord may not like to live in the shared accommodation, and it is for that reason that he purchased the house for his independent comfortable living. In such a situation, the landlord cannot be forced to live in the shared accommodation simply on the ground that the said accommodation was sufficient for his family as well. In such circumstances, the claim of the landlord could not be said to be nor bona fide as to debar him from claiming ejectment of his tenant. It may be remembered here that though it is not the mere wish of the landlord to claim eviction of his tenant, but rather, it is his requirement if he can prove by leading cogent evidence. But at the same time, the requirement is to be seen from the point of view of the landlord and the authorities under the Act will not judge the requirement from the view that it is possible for the landlord to live in the shared accommodation occupied by him at the time of filing the ejectment application. In that situation over and above, that tenant must show some ulterior motive, if any, on the part of the landlord to seek his ejectment. As regards the present case, there is no such evidence. Thus, the approach of the learned Appellate Authority was wrong and illegal and in any case, the landlord having been married pending the revision petition, his requirement was bona fide.

It may also be mentioned here that according to the Appellate Authority, the accommodation in the demised premises on the ground floor which are not meant for residence and are meant for commercial purpose, were also found to be sufficient accommodation for the residence of the landlord. As observed earlier, the whole approach of the Appellate Authority was misconceived. Under no circumstance, the said portion of the demised building can be considered to be sufficient for the accommodation of the petitioner when the same v/as not meant for residence.

As a result of the above discussion, the revision petition succeeds. The order of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside and the learned Rent Controller, directing the eviction of the tenant-respondents, is restored with costs. However, the respondents are allowed three months time to vacate the premises, provided all the arrears of rent, if any, with advance rent of this period, are deposited with the learned Rent Controller, Barnala. within one month.