Bhagwati Prashad vs Parkash Chand

This is Landlord''s petition is whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

The landlord Bhagwati Parshad is residing in rented premises which consists of one room. His family consists of his wife and four children who are of growing age and three of them are studying. Since he did not own any house he purchased the house in dispute vide sale deed Ex. A1(dated 6th June, 1983) for a sum of Rs. 22,000/- for his comfortable living. He filed the present ejectment application on 8th September, 1984, seeking the ejectment of his tenant Parkash Chand; inter alia, on the grounds that he bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation; that at present he is occupying the rented premises for Rs. 150/- per month and the said accommodation is insufficient for his family of six members; moreover, the children are of growing age and he wants more accommodation. The petition was resisted by the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds that the sale deed was not a genuine document as it was only a fraudulent. transaction brought about simply to seek his ejectment because earlier the previous landlord Om Prakash had filed three ejectment. application and had failed in all the three. Thus, according to the tenets the ejectment application was not a bona fide one. He also denied that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his personal use and occupation. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that ''the disputed premises consider of two rooms, one kitchen and a courtyard and the landlord is admittedly living at present in a rented premises consisting of one room and one kitchen only, and is paying an exorbitant rent, i.e., Rs. 150/- per month for the said premises while he himself is getting a sum of Rs. 50/- per month for a bigger premises from the tenant. It was; therefore, concluded that the landlord was quite justified in seeking the ejectment of his tenant and his need was bona fide. In view of this finding, eviction order was passed. In. appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding on the ground that the landlord had failed to produce the plan of the rented premises which were in his occupation at present. In the absence of the plan it could not be said that the accommodation in his occupation-was insufficient. According to the Appellate Authority even if the landlord was paying Rs. 150/- per month as rent and he was getting only Rs. 50/- as rent from his tenant that cannot be a reason to hold that the requirement of the landlord was genuine or bona fide. In view of this finding the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that non-filing of the plan of the premises occupied by the landlord was of no consequence. In any case, vide Civil Miscellaneous No. 3018-CII/1986 dated 9th June, 1986 he placed a copy of the plan on the record of this Court. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, the said accommodation was insufficient keeping in view the members of the family of the landlord and secondly he was paying higher rent for that and it was on that account that he purchased the house in dispute for a sum of Rs. 22,000/- for he comfortable living. Thus, argued the learned" counsel, the view taken by the Appellate authority was wholly wrong, improper and misconceived whereas the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the premises.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant submitted that there was no legal evidence on the record to hold that the landlord was paying Rs. 150/- as rent or that the said accommodation was insufficient for his requirement. According to the learned counsel, since no plan was filed the sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation could not be adjudged. In support of this contention he referred to Mohan Lal Jain v. Mohan Lal. It was next contended that in view of the Full Bench judgment reported as Ramesh Kumar v. Atma Devi the landlord was not entitled to evict his tenant because he was already in occupation of the premises though on rent.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on record I am of the considered view that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority is wholly wrong, illegal, improper and misconceived whereas the learned Rent Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide.

It is a case where the landlord does not own any other house except the house in dispute which he purchased on 6th June, 1983, for a considerable sum of Rs. 22,000/- for his comfortable living. His family consists of six members. All the four children are of growing age and are school-going. At present he is living in rented premises consisting of one room Monty. It was hardly material whether the plan of the said house was filed or not, particularly when he is paying a sum of Rs. 150/- p.m. as rent which is much higher than the one which he is getting for the premises in dispute, i.e., Rs. 50/- p.m. only. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises in dispute is amply proved on record. Even in the Full Bench judgment referred to above in Ramesh Kumar is case it was never held that the landlord occupying any other premises in the urban area concerned as tenant would not be entitled to ejectment of his own tenant even if there is sufficient cause for him to vacate the premises in his occupation or the same are not, sufficient/suitable for his needs. Rather it was observed therein that the landlord would be entitled to claim ejectment of his tenant if the premises in his occupation are not sufficient/suitable for his needs or he has some other reasonable cause to vacate the same. The very fact that he is paying much higher rent for the premises he is occupying as a tenant is itself a reasonable cause to vacate the same and seek the ejectment of his tenant from whom he is getting rent @ Rs. 50/- per month only.

As regards the contention that the sale transaction was not a genuine one, the tenant never claimed any issue in that respect and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to raise the same for the first time in this petition since it was a question of fact which could be proved'' only by leading evidence by the parties.

As a result of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and the ejectment application is allowed. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided an undertaking in writing is filed before the Rent Controller within one month that after the expiry of the said period vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and the rent for this period will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.

Application allowed.

* Against order of P. K. Garg, Addl. Dist. Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, D/- 11-4-1986.