A.S. Agnihotri vs Smt. Guran devi and others

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

The landlord A.S. Agnihotri sought the ejectment of his tenant Charanji Lal from the house in dispute situated at Ludhiana on the ground that he was retired from the Government service on 31st July, 1980 and has no other house excepting the house in dispute At present, he is living at Chandigarh in a rented house paying Rs 750/- as rent. Since 1968 he is in Chandigarh as he was pasted there and ultimately retired from there Ejectment application was filed on 23rd September, 1980, on the ground that he bonafide requires the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation after his retirement It was also pleaded that he had not vacated any other building in the urban area concerned without any sufficient cause

In the written statement, it was pleaded that the landlord was permanently settled at Chandigarh and was residing there with his family and has no intention of coming to Ludhiana and settle there. His sole object was to increase the rent as the tenant was paying only Rs 40/- per month. For that object, he had earlier also filed an ejectment application which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 4th April, 1978 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 10th September, 1979 vide judgment Exhibit R-2. Since the ground of personal necessity had been taken in that application as well, the Petitioner was now estopped from filing the present petition on the same ground. He, further pleaded that the landlord was owner of the residential house other than the disputed premises, but he bad sold the same in the year 1975 just to create a ground of ejectment of the present premises. The landlord was intending to sell this house also and was bargaining with that view.

The learned trial Court same to the conclusion that the landlord requires the premises bonafide foe use and occupation and that the previous litigation between the parties did not bar the present petition. The story put up by the tenant that the landlord wanted to increase the rent or wanted to sell away the property, was negatived. Consequently, eviction order was passed

In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller primarily on the ground that since in the earlier ejectment application this very ground was taken by the landlord and was dismissed, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the present application was not maintainable According to the Appellate Authority, no fresh cause of action has arisen after the dismissal of the earlier application by the Appellate Authority, It was further found that the requirement of the landlord does not appear to be genuine. It is only a cloak and a pretence. He does not require the premises for his own use and occupation. He wants to get it vacated either to sell it or to increase the rent. In view of these findings, eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the earlier ejectment application the landlord was non-suited on the ground that he had not pleaded that he has not vacated any other house in the urban area concerned without any sufficient reason. According to the learned Counsel, it was never held in those proceedings that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide Moreover, according to the learned Counsel, after his retirement a fresh cause of action has arisen to the landlord to file the present ejectment application Earlier the landlord was occupying the government accommodation being in service, but an retirement in July, 1980, he had to shift to the rented premises where, at present, he was paying Rs 750/- per month as rent. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, in view of these facts when the landlord has no other house anywhere except the premises in dispute, he bonafide requires the same for his own use and occupation. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that in view of the dismissal of the earlier ejectment application, no fresh cause of action had arisen and the need of the landlord was not bonafide.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record. Earlier application was dismissed primarily on the ground that the landlord had failed to plead the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act that he has not vacated any other house in the urban area concerned without sufficient cause. In that case, it had come into evidence that in the year 1975, the landlord had sold a house situated in the urban area concerned in Ludhiana. The said ejectment application was filed on 1st May, 1976. Since the house was sold prior to the filing of the ejectment application, the landlord was supposed to mention this fact and to prove that the same was sold for a sufficient reason. It was on that account that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the landlord. The relevant observations in this behalf are in para 17 of the judgment Exhibit R-2, which reads as under:-

In the case in hand, it is true that A.S. Agnihotri appeared and stated that he after retirement wanted to settle at Ludhiana. This could be said to be good ground for ejectment had the Appellant not suppressed this fact from the Court that, be was earlier in possession of a house and sold the same in the year 1975. In this manner, the Appellant had suppressed the true facts from Court and also failed to plead all the three ingredients contained in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The Appellant had no doubt pleaded that he was not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned but he concealed the fact by alleging that he hat not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The Appellant admittedly was in possession of a house and he had sold it in 1975, but that fact was not pleaded in the application. The application for ejectment, as such, must fail on the ground of personal need .

It is not disputed now that the landlord retired from service on 31st July, 1980, and after that he had shifted to a rented house where he is paying Rs 750/- per month as rent as deposed by Rajnish Kumar (A. W-2), the attorney of that landlord. The landlord has two sons who are unmarried so far. The other house which was sold earlier in the year 1975 was joint property and, therefore, the same was sold. This fact was specifically pleaded in the present ejectment application that the landlord has not vacated any other premises without any sufficient cause. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide requires the premises for use and occupation and that previous litigation between the parties does not bar the present petition. The said finding has been reversed in appeal by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. Once it is found that the landlord does not own any other place, ordinarily he is entitled to occupy his own house particularly after his retirement. At present, the landlord is paying Rs. 750/- per month as rent at Chandigarh whereas he is getting only Rs. 40/- per month as rent from the demised premises The observations made by the Appellate Authority that "it is only a cloak and a pretence. He does not require the house for his own use and occupation. He wants to get it vacated either to sell it or to increase the rent" are unwarranted and without any cogent evidence. Faced with this situation, it was contended on behalf of the tenant that another portion of this very house was got vacated by the landlord during the pendency of these proceedings, but in spite of that the same has not been occupied as yet. According to the learned Counsel, that by itself shows that the landlord did not require the premises in dispute bonafide. In case he really wanted to shift to Ludhiana from Chandigarh, he would have occupied the premises vacated by the other tenant I do not find any merit in this contention either. Of course, a portion of the home in dispute was vacated by the other tenant during the pendency of these proceedings, but the same could not be occupied unless it was duly repaired Since that is a portion of the house in dispute, the landlord is entitled to wait till the whole house is vacated before he shifts to that house after making necessary repairs etc. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be pointed out that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide in any manner The plea of the tenant that the landlord wanted to increase the rent or wanted to sell away the property, was not substantiated by any cogent evidence Moreover, after retirement a fresh cause of action has arisen to the landlord to seek the ejectment of his tenant particularly when he does not own any other house except the premises in dispute

Consequently, this petition succeeds, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller passing the eviction order is restored with costs. However the tenant is allowed three month'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for three months is deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period, the vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord