Bodh Raj vs R.R. Nagpal

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

The premises in dispute is the ground floor in H. No. 1149, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh, which was rented to the tenant R. R. Nagpal, Respondent, somewhere in September, 1978. The ejectment application was filed on 16th July, 1983, on the ground that the landlord bona-fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that in 1979, the landlord was occupying Government accommodation but as the same was insufficient he shifted to the house of his mother in H. No. 735, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, and that now, his mother was pressing him hard to vacate her premises. In the Written Statement, it was pleaded by the tenant that in November, 1980, the first floor of the house in dispute was vacated by the tenant and the same was again rented out to another tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- which was increased in the year 1983 to Rs. 450/- per month, and, therefore, the requirement of the landlord was not bona-fide, and it was only a made-up story. However, in the replication, the landlord admitted that the said portion was vacated by the tenant but at the same time he pleaded that he wanted to occupy the ground floor of the house in dispute as the present accommodation was insufficient to meet his requirement.

On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord was bona-fide because his wife could not climb up-stairs and it was for this reason that he did not occupy the first floor when it was vacated by the tenant in the year 1980. Thus, on this finding it was held that non-shifting of the landlord in the year 1981 when the first floor of the house in question fell vacant does not at all make the present petition mala-fide. As a result of this finding, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the appellate authority reversed the said finding on the ground that there was no cogent explanation as to why the landlord did not occupy the first floor when it was vacated in the year 1981. According to the Appellate Authority, the landlord stated that he could not shift to the first floor being a patient of hyper-tension for which there is no evidence to support the said plea. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition.

During the pendency of this petition, civil miscellaneous No. 2146-CII/1986 was filed in this Court to bring the subsequent events on the record. It was stated therein that Mrs. Suman, wife of the landlord, had to undergo major surgery for the removal of renal stone in the P.G.I., Chandigarh. She was admitted in the hospital on Ist March, 1986, operated on 5th March, 1986 and discharged on 22nd March, 1986. Dr. S. K. Sharma of the Urology Department operated on her and is still looking after her for her post-operative care. She is still bed-ridden and cannot climb up-stairs. In reply to the said application, the tenant has stated that it is factually wrong that the wife of the landlord is still bed-ridden and cannot climb up-stairs.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the view taken by the Appellate Authority was illegal and improper, and that the landlord never stated that he could not shift to the first floor being a patient of hyper-tension. In his statement he has stated that he did not shift to the first floor of the house in dispute because his wife could not climb up-stairs, and the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the first floor could not be occupied by the landlord under the circumstances. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, taking into consideration the evidence on record and the subsequent events, the equipment of the landlord was most genuine and bona-fide.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on record. I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the landlord-Petitioner. The mere fact that the landlord did not occupy the first floor of the house in dispute when it was vacated in the year 1981 was of no consequence when it has been fully explained that the same could not be occupied because of the illness of his wife. The landlord while in the witness-box categorically stated so, and it was on that basis that the learned Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord was bona-fide. The said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. Moreover, in view of the affidavit filed by the landlord in this Court in C. M. No. 2146-CII/1986, it is quite evident that his wife cannot climb up-stairs because of operation. Thus, the requirement of the landlord is most genuine and bona-fide. Consequently, the petition succeeds, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment is restored with costs.

However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that on the expiry of the said period, vacant possession shall be handed over to the landlord and for the said period the rent shall be paid regularly in advance by the 10th of each month.