Bhim Sain vs Sant Lal

This is landlord''s revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The landlord-petitioner, Dr. Bhim Sain, Purchased the premises, in dispute, from Gauri Shankar, the original landlord, vide registered sale deed dt. Sept. 16, 1980. According to the landlord, the premises were rented out to the tenant, Sant Lal, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- by the original landlord Gauri Shankar and after their purchase he had become the owner and the landlord thereof. the ejectment application was filed on Oct. 25, 1980, inter alia on the grounds that the premises, in question, were required for the personal residence as the landlord had no other accommodation in the urban area concerned and that the premises had also become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the tenancy was at the rate of Rs. 50/- and not Rs. 20/- per month as alleged. It was maintained that the building, in question, was quite safe and fit for human habitation. It, was denied that the landlord bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation. On the question of bona fide requirement, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide requirement to occupy the same. According to the Rent Controller, the landlord intentionally purchased the property which was occupied by the tenant at a very ordinary rent and, therefore; it could not be said that the ejectment application was bona fide. At the same time, it was also observed that it may be true that the landlord is the sole judge of his requirements but it is established law that the claim of the petitioner has to be scrutinized by the Court. In view of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller with the observations,--

"The mere assertion that son wants to live separate from his father is not sufficient to prove his bona fide need."

Dissatisfied with the same; the landlord had filed this revision petition in this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord required the premises for his own occupation it being his only house. Therefore, the question of bona fides was alien for consideration and need not at all be gone into unless there were compelling circumstances to disbelieve the version of the landlord. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Anandhayee Ammal v. S. M. Khaja & Co (1967) 1 Mad LJ 368. The learned counsel further contended that as the landlord wanted to live separately from his father, he purchased the house, in dispute, for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and, therefore, his requirement to occupy the same was most bona fide. The mere fact that he had purchased the property which was occupied by the tenant at the time of the sale, did not mean that the eviction application was not bona fide.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record, I find that the requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises by him vide sale deed dt. Spt. 16, 1980, was most bona fide. Besides himself, the landlord also produced his father Din Dayal in the witness-box who stated that earlier his son was living with him, but now, he wanted to live separately with his family. As a matter of fact, he purchased the house for this very, purpose.

None can be compelled to live with his father in case he is in a position to live separately by purchasing a house. The tenant has not challenged the sale in any way to be mala fide, nor there was any issue to that effect. If the sale was not mala fide, then the application filed by the landlord after the sale in his favour could not be held to be mala fide simply on the ground that he had purchased the property knowing well that it was occupied by a tenant. There is evidence on the record to prove that at one stage there was some agreement to sell with the tenant as well, but it appears that later on, he backed out and did not pursue the matter further and the original owner, Gauri Shankar, sold the property to Bhim Sain who became its owner and. the landlord subsequently. This being the only house owned by him, he was entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant in order to live himself therein. Of course, earlier, he was living with his father in a rented premises, but. since he wants to live with his family separately from his father, there was nothing to suggest that the ejectment application was in any manner mala fide. As observed earlier; the mere fact that he purchased the house knowing well that it was occupied by the tenant was itself no ground to hold'' that the ejectment application was not bona fide.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the authorities below are sat aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenant. He is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears. of rent, if any and an undertaking; in writing, that he shall vacate the premises after the expiry, of the said period and hardener their vacant possession to the landlord; are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month, and the rent for the said period is paid monthly in advance by the tenth of every month. No costs.

Revision allowed.