Bal Krishan vs Walaiti Ram

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

The house in dispute originally belonged to one Piara Lal who had let it out to the tenant Walaiti Ram at a monthly rental of Rs. 6.00. Bal Krishan Petitioner purchased the said house for a sum of Rs. 5,500/- on 8th August, 1974 as he wanted to have an independent accommodation for his own comfortable living. He filed the present ejectment application on 23rd September, 1974 primarily on the ground that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation and secondly alleging that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant these allegations were controverted. He denied for want of knowledge if Bal Krishan Petitioner had purchased the property in dispute from its land-lord Piara Lal particularly when no notice of transfer had been served on him. He denied that the house on dispute was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the land-lord bona fide required the same. On trial the learned Rent Controller found that from the sale deed Exhibit A. 2 it is clear that the Petitioner had purchased the property in dispute from Piara Lal, the previsous land-owner and thus he had become the landlord. It was further found that the land-lord has proved by congent and reliable evidence that he bona fids required the premises for his own use and occupation. In view of that finding, the eviction order was passed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the land-lord had failed to prove that he validly purchased the property from its previous owner Piara Lal. It was found that there was no cogent evidence on the record to prove that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation particularly when he was at present residing at Patiala and the premises in dispute are situated at Nabha. According to the appellate authority, the mere fenciful wish of the land-lord to shift to the house at Nabha is of no avail to him as the element of need is missing. As a result of these findings, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same the land-lord has filed this petition in this Court.

Alongwith the revision petition the land-lord also moved an application (Civil Misc. No. 4015-C. II of 1980) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC by virtue of which he wanted to place on the record the special power of attorney executed by Piara Lal in favour of Paramjit Singh.

In view of the said document it is no more contested now that Bal Krishan Petitioner was the land-lord of the demised premises because he has purchased the same from its previous owner Piara Lal.

The only question to be decided is as to whether the land-lord has been able to prove his bona fide requirement or not. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at present the land-lord was living at Patiala in his ancestral house alongwith his brothers. He purchased the house in dispute for his self-occupation in order to live comfortably. Thus from the evidence and the circumstances of the case it is clear that the desire to shift from Patiala to Nabha was bona fide and the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the bona fide requirement was there. In support of this contention he referred to Rajesh Kumar Jain v. Kamal Kumar (1986) 89 P. L. R. 630 and Ram Parkash Jarath v. Om Parkash Vij (1986) 89 P. L. R. 63.

It was next contended that he purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 5,500/- knowing that it was at a rent of Rs. 6/- per month. This itself shows that the property was purchased for his seli-occupation and thus the requirement was bona fide. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that the property was purchased for profit purposes. Moreover, in the notice issued by the landlord prior to the ejectment application this fact was never mentioned and not only that even in the ejectment application no such details were given as to why he wanted to shift from Patiala to Nabha. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel, no brother of the land-lord has come forward in the witness-box to support the version of the land-lord Bal Krishan. In support of his contention he has referred to Mohan Lal v. Tirath Ram Chopra 1982 (2) R. C. R. 1961 and Iqbal Singh v. Lachhman Dass 1972 (2) Rent L. R. 598.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record I find that the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the requirement of the land-lord was bona fide and the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. According to the learned Rent Controller, the bona fide intention is to be gathered from the fact that he obtained the sanction from the Municipality for reconstruction of the house as is clear from Exhibit P. 4. It is further evident from the statement of Bal Krishan land-lord that he intended to occupy the premises in dispute at Nabha. There is nothing on the record to prove that the intention of the land-lord was mala fide in any manner. This finding has been reversed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that it is not understood as to why the land-lord should at all shift to Nabha when he has set up business at Patiala and has been residing there for the last many years. This approach was wholly wrong and illegal as it was for the land-lord to decide as to whether he is to settle at Patiala or at Nabha. It has come in evidence that the house at Patiala, which is in his occupation, is ancestral one and is also occupied by his brother. It was in these circumstances that he purchased the house in dispute at Nabha for his self-occupation. His intention to occupy the same is also evidence from the fact that immediately thereafter he filed the ejectment application on 23rd September, 1974. Thus the bona fide requirement of the land-lord is amply proved on the record. Consequently this petition succeeds. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment is restored with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed 3 months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for the said period is deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period vacant possession will be handed over to the land-lord.