Bir Parkash vs Sharam Singh

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition directed against the order of the appellate Authority whereby the order of the Rent Controller was set aside and in consequence thereof, the tenant was ordered to be ejected.

In brief, the facts are that the landlord (respondent herein) filed a petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (briefly the Act'') for the ejectment of the tenant (petitioner herein) on the allegation that the premises had been let out to the tenant in January, 1976, at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month, and now the said premises are required by him for his personal use and occupation. In the ejectment application, it was further averred that the landlord has four sons and out of the four sons his son namely Balvinder Singh, who got married in 1982, wants to occupy the house as he intends to shift from Chandigarh to Patiala.

The tenant in his written statement denied the rate of rent as Rs. 250/- per month of the premises in dispute. According to him, the premises were let out to him at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. The tenant also denied the ground of personal requirement of the premises by the landlord.

The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition on finding that the rent was Rs. 30/- per month and not Rs. 250/- as claimed by the landlord. The Rent Controller also found that the premises in occupation of the tenant are not required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation as his son, Balwinder Singh, was residing at Chandigarh and working permanently as taxi driver. On Appeal by the landlord, the appellate Authority set aside the finding of the Rent Controller and in consequence thereof, the tenant was ordered to be ejected on the ground of non payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity. This order has been impugned by the tenant in the present revision petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the considered view that the finding of the appellate Authority with regard to rate of rent cannot be maintained. The Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence on record, found the rate to be Rs. 30/- per month. This finding was set aside by the Appellate Authority on the ground that it cannot be believed that the premises consisting of one room were rented out at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month in 1976, and also that the tenant filed an application in the year 1983 for fixing of fair rent. According to the appellate Authority, in case the rent had been Rs. 30/- there was no occasion for the tenant to file an application for fixing the fair rent. This finding of the appellate Authority is completely based on conjectures. The appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the evidence which was discussed by the Rent Controller while arriving at a finding that the premises were let out at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. Consequently, this finding of the appellate Authority is set aside and it is held that the premises were let out at the Rate of Rs. 30/- per month. So far as the other ground, i.e. personal necessity, is concerned, I find that no interference is called for. Concededly the premises in occupation of the landlord at Chandigarh are very small, i.e., L.I.G. house, whereas the landlord has a large family, consisting of his four sons, out of which one is marred and working as taxi driver at Chandigarh. The ejectment petition was filed on the ground of requirement of the premises for the married son of the landlord. The landlord in his statement has categorically stated that the accommodation in his possession is very small and for that matter, his married son intends to shift to Patiala. Balvinder Singh, son of the landlord while appearing as A.W. 3 made a categoric statement that he intends to shift to Patiala because at Chandigarh, he is earning only Rs. 400/- by plying the taxi of one Kuldip Singh. He also stated that one room set is not available on rent for less than Rs. 400/- per month. He also gave details of the accommodation in possession of the landlord and his family. According to him the landlord has 8 family members and was residing in house consisting of two rooms. Balvinder Singh on this aspect was not cross examined at all. Otherwise also by no stretch of imagination, the accommodation in possession of the landlord can be said to be sufficient. It has already come on record that the landlord does not own any other house or has constructed any house within Patiala after the commencement of the Act. In my considered view, landlord has successfully established on record that he requires the premises for his married son.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed to the extent that finding of the appellate Authority with regard to rate of rent is set aside, and finding with regard to personal necessity is however maintained. On the oral prayer made by the counsel for the tenant, tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided he pays/deposits the entire arrears of rent, including that of three months, within one month from today and also files an undertaking within one month that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on expiry of the aforesaid period. No costs.