Bishan Dass vs Khem Chand

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

The landlord Bishan Dass sought the ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground that be bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that he had six children, three sons and three daughters who were aged 13 years, 11 years and 8 years and 20 years,l7 years and 15 years respectively at the time of filing the application in February, 1979. It was categorically pleaded that the present accommodation in his occupation was insufficient for the grown up children, Another ground for ejectment was nonpayment of arrears of rent for three years at the Tate of Rs 100/- per month. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant It was pleaded that the rent was Rs. 40/- per month and rent prior to December, 1978 had already been paid and from December. 1978 onwards the rent was tendered on the first date of hearing. The ground of personal necessity was denied.

The learned Rent Controller found that the rent was Rs. 40/- per month as claimed by the tenant and not Rs. 100/- as alleged by the landlord. However, on the question of payment of arrears of rent it was found that since the tenant was not in possession of any documentary evidence to prove payment of the rent prior to December, 1978, the tender made on the first date of hearing was invalid.

On the question of personal necessity also, it was found that the landlord had proved by producing convincing evidence that he required the demised premises for his bona fide personal necessity.

In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller. It was found that since the landlord was found to be false on the question of rate of rent, his plea that no rent was paid for three years could not be accepted. Moreover, no receipt was ever issued by the landlord, and therefore the question of producing any documentary evidence on behalf of the tenant did not arise. Thus, it was concluded that the tender made or the first date of hearing was valid. As regards the question of personal necessity, the learned Appellate Authority found that the landlord has not specified the comparative figures of the area in his possession and in possession of the tenant in the ejectment application to show that the area in his occupation was insufficient for his use. According to the Appellate Authority, it amounts to failure to furnish the ingredients which entail the dismissal of the ejectment petition. It was also found that the demised premises arc situated in a different Mohalla and, therefore, the question of occupying the same as such did not arise 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 all the necessary details as to the area in occupation of the landlord at present and the area of the demised premises were given in the ejectment application in para 4 (Kha) and therefore, it has been wrongly observed by the Appellate Authority that the necessary ingredients were not furnished. According to the Learned Counsel, there is no rebuttal on behalf of the tenant as regards the personal requirement of the landlord Rather, he has admitted that the landlord has got three daughters and three sons who are now grown up. Thus, argued the Learned Counsel, the finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf was correct and has been reversed in appeal on surmises and conjectures. He also challenged the findings of the Rent Controller on the question of payment of arrears of rent. It was contended that it was for the tenant to prove that he had paid the arrears of rent up-to-date.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the tenant, contended that once it is found that the landlord was not coming with clean hands as he claimed rent at the rate of Rs 100/- per month whereas it has been found concurrently by both the authorities below that the rent was only Rs. 40/- per month, his application was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone In any case, argued the Learned Counsel, if the landlord is found to be false on one ground, he could not be believed on the other ground of ejectment as well'' In support of his contention, he referred to Lok Nath v. Khanya Lal 1983 Hary R.R. 264.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that from the evidence on the record, it has been amply proved that the landlord bona fide requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation Tie finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf has been reversed by the Appellate Authority on surmises and conjectures From the perusal of the ejectment application, it is quite evident that all the necessary details of the accommodation in ocoupation of the landlord were duly given therein. Not only that, even the plan was also attached alongwith the application Thus, the whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wrong and illegal. Admittedly, the landlord has got six children who are now grown up. The present accommodation in their occupation was insufficient. The premises were let out to the tenant when they were quite young Moreover, there is no rebuttal on the part of the tenant to prove that the application of the landlord was not bona fide in any manner.

The contention raised on behalf of the tenant that the landlord was also in occupation of other premises apart from the house in his occupation which fact he never disclosed in the ejectment application, has no force nor it was ever contended before any of the authorities below. The other accommodation in occupation of the landlord is not residential, but for running his business. Those premises he has taken on rent from the Punjab Wakf Board Thus it could not be successfully argued that that accommodation was residential in any manner. In these circumstances, the landlord is entitled to eject his tenant on the ground of personal necessity.

In this view of the matter, the other ground of non-payment of arrears of rent need not be gone into. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant is restored with costs, However, the tenant is allowed three month''s time to vacate the premise) provided all the arrears of rent, if any and the advance rent of three months, is paid within one month and the undertaking in writing that he will vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession after the expiry of three months'' period is filed with the Rent Controller within one month.