Arjan Singh vs Kanhiya Lal

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The landlord-Petitioner having failed to secure an order of ejectment against the tenant-Respondent from the learned Rent Controller or from the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ''the Act''), has approached this Court through the present revision petition.

The Petitioner filed an ejectment application against the Respondent u/s 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the latter on two grounds, namely, that he has neither paid nor tendered rent from 1.3.1970 onwards and that the premises in dispute were required by him for his own use and for the use and occupation of his family members. It was alleged that the Petitioner had purchased the house from its previous owner and had got the right to recover the rent from the Respondent, from 1.3.1970 to 30 12.1971. Narain Dass, father of the Respondent, was a tenant in the demised premises under the previous owner at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ vide rent note dated 15 1.1948. It was further stated that the Petitioner is living in another house along with his sons and their families and that house is not sufficient for their needs. They have no other house excepting the one already in their possession in which they are residing, nor they have vacated any in the urban area of Gurgaon without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Punjab Act, 1949'') It was further disclosed that another property No. E. P. 17 situated on the old Railway Road, Gurgaon, which was in a dilapidated condition, was sold by the Petitioner on 28 12.1971 and with the sale proceeds of the said house the property in dispute was purchased by him.

The Respondent contested the petition. He disputed the rate of rent. According to him, originally the rate of rent was Rs 20/- per month with effect from 1.10.1954 and later on it was increased to Rs. 22.50 per month, which was the rate of rent prevailing on the date of filing of the ejectment application. The rent was tendered on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 22.50 per month along with interest and costs. The same was accepted by the Petitioner under protest stating that the tender is not valid. As regards the alleged requirement of the Petitioner in respect of the house in dispute for his own use and for the use of his family members, it was contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner had three more houses in the urban area of Gurgaon which are sufficient for his requirements. It was further stated that during the pendency of the ejectment application, the Petitioner had converted the ground floor of the premises in dispute into a non-residential building and let it out to the National Textile Corporation. It was also alleged that the Petitioner had made some other construction and rented out the same to the State Bank of Patiala during the pendency of the ejectment application. The Petitioner had also vacated two rooms which were in his possession on the old Railway Road without any sufficient cause. He has also one house in Jacubpura, Gurgaon, and the same was also vacated by him without any sufficient cause.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following two material issues were framed:

Issue No. (2): Whether the Respondent has tendered the rent properly ?

Issue No. (3): Whether the Petitioner requires the demised premises for the occupation of his family ?

After receiving evidence of the parties and appreciating the same, the learned Rent Controller reached at the finding that the agreed rate of rent in respect of the premises was Rs. 22 50 per month and the tender of rent thus made by the Respondent was valid He further held that the Petitioner did not require the demised premises for the occupation of his family. As a result the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide his judgment dated 18 11.1978. An appeal filed by the Petitioner also failed and was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 6.10 1979. It affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller on both the material issues.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also gone through their pleadings as also the evidence adduced before the Rent Controller. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there being a rent note Ex. P. W.1/1 executed by Narain Dass, father of the Respondent, on 15.7.1948 which stipulates the rate of rent of the premises at Rs. 25/- per month, no evidence on behalf of the Respondent to the effect that the rate of rent was Rs. 22.50 per month ought to have been taken into consideration. I have considered this submission but find no force in the same. It is not a case where oral evidence was sought to be led against the stipulation in an agreement in writing. What the learned Courts below have relied on are the counterfoils of the receipts Exs. R. W. 2/1-4 signed by Siri Pal, the previous landlord, receipts Exs. P. W. 2/5, 6, 8 and 9 issued by Siri Pal, and receipt Ex. R W 2/7 signed by Ramji Lal All these receipts are to the effect that the rate of rent was Rs. 22.50 per month in respeet of the premises in dispute Receipt Ex. R. W. 2/5 is in respect of the rent for the period from 1.7.1969 to 28.2.1970. Even according to the Petitioner, rent with effect from 1 3.1970 had not been paid to the previous landlord Thus, it shows that till the last payment to the previous landlord the rate of rent was Rs. 22-50 per month. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not point out any discrepancy in this overwhelming evidence which proves that the rate of rent was Rs. 22.50 per month. I, therefore, affirm the finding of the learned Courts below on this issue.

As regards the alleged bona fide requirement of the Petitioner to occupy the premises in dispute for his own use and for the use of his family, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner stressed that the Petitioner besides his wife has five sons who are married and have their children. Two other sons are unmarried and the Petitioner has one daughter also. Thus, in all the members of the Petitioner''s family are 26 in number. It was pointed out from the evidence on the record that the Petitioner is in possession of a house consisting of five rooms and that this accommodation is not sufficient for the use of the family. The learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, stressed that the bare statement of the Petitioner and his ipse dixit is not to be believed as regards his bona fide requirement in respect of the premises in dispute. He pointed out that the copy of the house-tax register Ex. P. w. 4/19 shows that the house already in occupation of the Petitioner consists of six rooms, one bath-room, two kitchens and a courtyard. He has also constructed another house which consists of two rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor besides a store, a courtyard, two latrines and two bathrooms. This accommodation could not be said to be insufficient for the Petitioner and his family members. Besides, one of the material ingredients of Section 13(3)(a) (i) of the Act is that the Petitioner has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Punjab Act, 1949 in the same urban area. He pointed out that the ground floor of the premises in dispute was in possession of the Petitioner. It consists of two rooms and a kitchen. One of his sons used to live in these premises. However, after making some changes the Petitioner has let out the same to the National Textile Corporation during the pendency of the ejectment application. The fact that the ground floor of the building was so let out by the Petitioner has not been disputed. It is, however, contended that the same was not a residential building and was, therefore, let out for use as a go down to the National Textile Corporation There is, however, unimpeachable evidence on the record that one son of the Petitioner was living with his family on this very ground floor which, as already mentioned above consisted of two rooms and a kitchen. It was decidedly a residential accommodation which the Petitioner converted into a go-down and let out for his pecuniary benefit. Thus, one of the essential ingredients as mentioned above has not been established by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel for the Respondent placed on the record an affidavit dated 11.1.1987 of the Respondent wherein it is averred that the sons of the Petitioner were allotted houses Nos 444 to 448 and 433 of L. I. G category in sector 17 in the Urban Area, Gurgaon. They have, however, transferred these houses to others for consideration. They did not shift to these houses and did not occupy the same for the purposes of residence It is further averred that Sangat Singh and Bhupinder Singh, sons of the Petitioner, have shifted permanently to Patiala and another son of the Petitioner, namely, Harpal Singh, has also shifted to Punjab Still another son of the Petitioner, namely, Mahender Singh, has constructed another house near Dr. Lal Nursing Home. Railway Road, Gurgaon, and is residing in the said house since July, 1983. It is, however, not necessary to bank upon the averments made in this affidavit because the evidence already on the record amply shows that the Petitioner has not been able to establish the ingredient that he has not vacated any other similar building in the urban area of Gurgaon. Therefore, he is not entitled to seek eviction of the Respondent u/s 13(3)(a) (i) of the Act.

As a result of the above discussion, I find no force in this revision petition which is consequently dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.