Budh Singh vs Ram Gopal

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

The premises, in dispute, were rented out to the tenant. Ram Gopal, on May 17, 1980, on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. The application for ejectment was filed on June 15, 1982, inter alia on the ground that the landlord required the premises for his two married sons, namely, Harjit Singh and Devinder Singh. Those two sons of the landlord were then residing with him in another house which belonged to his mother Shrimati Rukman Kaur. The accommodation in possession of the landlord was highly insufficient and he was to shift his two sons to the demised premises on vacation from the tenant, alongwith their wives and children. It was also pleaded that the said sons of the Petitioner-landlord were not occupying in the urban area concerned, any other building as a residence, nor had they vacated any such building without any sufficient cause. It the written statement, the tenant denied that the landlord required the demised premises for the residence of his married sons. He also pleaded that the application was for partial ejectment and as such was liable to be dismissed. The learned Rent Controller found that it could not be held that the application was for partial eviction. It was found that the landlord required the demised premises for the bona fide need of his married sons. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on January 30, 1985. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord did not require the premises for his own use and occupation and that he had failed to prove that he needed the premises bona fied. It was also held that the eviction petition was bad for partial eviction. Consequently the eviction order was set aside.

During the pendency of this revision petition the tenant moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1776-CII of 1989, to bring on the record that Shrimati Rukman Kaur, the mother of the landlord, had died meanwhile and that, therefore, the landlord was no living in house No. 820, in his own right as the owner. Notice of the application was given to the landlord, but no reply was filed thereto. On the other hand, it was stated at the bar that during the pendency of this revision petition, even an other son of the landlord had also been married.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises for the residence of his married sons, as the present accommodation was insufficient to meet his requirement. According to the learned Counsel, the Rent Controller rightly found that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide, but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures. The whole approach of Appellate Authority was wrong and illegal.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that the application was not bona fide as there was no change in the circumstances after the premises were let out in the year 1980, when the application for ejectment was filed in the year 1982. The landlord with his children including the two married sons, was living in the house owned by his mother; at that time Now, after the death of his mother, he has become its owner. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the present accommodation in occupation of the landlord and his married sons was sufficient to meet their requirements. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, the ejectment application suffers from partial ejectment as well.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find that the view taken by the Appellate Authority was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived.

The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises for the separate residence of his two married sons. The fact that his said two sons were married and had children, was not denied. Admittedly, the landlord has got six sons out of them Rajinder Singh was unmarried whereas Jasbir Singh was married and had two children at the time and living in U.K. His other sons, Manmohan Singh had four children; Jaspal Singh two children; Harjit Singh two children and Davinder Singh had one child. Thus, keeping in view the number of the members of the family of the landlord and their growing age, the learned Rent Controller rightly found that the landlord bona fide required the premises for the occupation of his married sons and that the accommodation in his possession was insufficient to meet his requirement. The said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures. The whole approach of the Appellate Authority, in this behalf was wrong and illegal. According to the Appellate Authority, there was do reason to vacate the said house owned by the mother of the landlord as there will be none to look after her, but this was never the case of the landlord that they were going to leave that accommodation; rather the case set up by him was that the accommodation there was insufficient to meet their requirement in view of the number of the members of the family. Thus, the bona fide requirement of the landlord far his married sons is amply proved on the record and the death of the mother during the pendency of the petition does not make any difference.

As regards the finding of the Appellate Authority that the eviction petition was bad for partial ejectment, it is also not sustainable. Since the tenant has occupied one of the rooms illegally, the landlord did not claim his ejectment from that room in the present ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller found,--

No doubt Davinder Singh son of the applicant had stated that one room shown in yellow colour, at present is not in possession of the applicant on account of dispute, but that is not enough to hold the Respondent to be tenant of the same, and at the most it can be said to be in his unauthorised possession.

Therefore, if the tenant is in unauthorised possession of a room, it could not be held that the eviction application suffers from partial eviction.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and that of the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the tenant, is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for three months, are deposited with the Rent Controller, within one month alongwith an undertaking, in writing that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord.