Budh Singh Sethi vs Rajinder Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The landlord Budh Singh filed the ejectment application on May 31, 1981, u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applicable to Chandigarh (hereafter called the Act), on the allegations that the Respondent Rajinder Singh was the tenant under him on the ground floor of house No. 302, Sector 15-A. Chandigarh, consisting of one dining cum-drawing hall, study room, bed room, store, kitchen and verandah and also a room on the first floor therein at the monthly rent of Rs. 320/- exclusive of electricity and water charges since November, 1974. According to the landlord, he was previously running his business at Calcutta, but due to his old age; now he being about 75 years old, he along with his wife, had shifted to Chandigarh in January, 1981, with the intention to permanently settle here. His business in Calcutta was being run by his youngest son Ravinder Singh Sethi. At present, he had got no accommodation to live except a room on the first floor of the house, in question. In view of his genuine persona] requirement, he asked the tenant to vacate the demised premises, but instead of doing so he tactfully deposited Rs 350/- in his Bank account in the Central Bank of Tndia, Chandigarh, as rent for the month of March, 1981, to which he had never agreed. The said amount was deposited by the tenant without his consent. When he became aware of it, he closed his Bank account. The tenant had also raised unauthorised construction on the ground floor without his consent. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the demised premises were a scheduled building within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act, as the same had been let out to him partly for running the office of Engineers and Architects and partly for residence. He disputed the genuiness and bona fide of the landlord''s need of the demised premises. The learned Rent Controller found that the demised premises were not a Scheduled building as alleged. However, on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the same for his use and occupation, it was held that the landlord''s shifting his residence from Calcutta to Chandigarh was not bona fide. The landlord and his wife were above 70 years of age arid it could not be believed that they would be living at Chandigarh away from the sons unattended. The landlord was in occupation of not one but two rooms as he had admitted that there was one improvised room which was used by him for sleeping. In view of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the. Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that from the evidence on the record it has been amply proved that the landlord has shifted from Calcutta to Chandigarh and now he wants to settle permanently at Chandigarh and for that purpose, he wants to occupy his own house. At present, the accommodation with him is very small and, therefore, in order to accommodate himself and his relatives who visit him from time to time since he has got five daughters, he bona fide requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation According to the learned Counsel, the whole approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wholly misconceived and, therefore, the findings arrived at by them are vitiated. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant-Respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide and this being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, the landlord had failed to prove that he had shifted from Calcutta to Chandigarh, by any cogent evidence, nor his desire to shifting from Calcutta to Chandigarh was bona fide. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Lakshmi Devi v. Mela Ram 1982 (1) RL. R. 440, Mangat Ram v. Om Parkash 1983 (1) R C. R. 30, Chitter Kumar v. Rattan Lal 1983 (2) R C. R. 387 and Sohan Devi v. Parkash Chander 1984 (1) R L. R. 112.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

5 After going through the evidence on the record ; particularly the statements of the landlord and the tenant, who appeared as A.W.5 and R.W.11, respectively, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the authorities below holding that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide is wholly misconceived and the findings arrived at are improper and illegal. From the evidence on the record, it has been amply proved that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation since he has shifted from Calcutta to Chandigarh. What weighed with the authority below was that since the landlord was of old age, it could not be beleived that he along with his wife would be living at Chandigarh away from his sons and that the present accommodation in his possession consisting of two rooms was sufficient to meet his requirement. According to the Appellate Authority, -

In the present case, the Appellant has given his own age as 75 years. It is his own case in the ejectment application that due old age he has pain in his legs and is suffering from low blood pressure while his wife is suffering from heart trouble. If it is so, it is in their interest that they should live with their some sons where they may be looked after and attended to by the other members of the family rather than to live alone unattended by any third person in the demised premises away from their three sons who are settled in Calcutta, Ludhiana and Khanna. It is significant that it is neither his case in the ejectment application nor has he adduced any evidence to the effect that he is not having cordial relations with his sons and/or their wives, and that because of any differences, with them, it is not possible for them to live with them, in the absence of any plea or evidence in this respect, the argument of the learned Counsel to the effect that the Appellant wants to live in the demised premises, free from tension and strain of living with other members of his family, cannot assist him. All his three sons are undisputedly well settled and the afore referred evidence indicates that he along with his wife is already residing with their second son at Ludhiana.

This approach as observed earlier is wholly misconceived. It is for the landlord to see whether he wants separate occupation from his sons or not. For that purpose; it is not the requirement of any law that he must have strained relations with his sons or their wives and only then he can claim a separate residence from them. All the sons of the landlord may be settled, but he does not own any other house except the house, in dispute, at Chandigarh. When he has shifted from Calcutta after handing over his business to his son, there is nothing to suggest that his requirement is not bona fide when he wants to occupy his own house at Chandigarh. The mere fact that the landlord had also been residing at Ludhiana for some time and he has also got one or two rooms on the first floor of the house, in question, is of no consequence as it is proved from the evidence on record that the present accommodation in his occupation was not sufficient to meet his requirement. The case set up by the tenant was that the landlord wanted to increase the rent and for that purpose he also relied upon the letters, Exhibits R.5 and R.3. to prove that the landlord, as a matter of fact, wanted to enhance the rent. When the landlord claimed Rs. 500/- as rent and the tenant did not agree to the same, he filed the ejectment application. Even if it be assumed that till that time landlord did not require the premises for his own occupation, he wanted the tenant to enhance the rent, there was nothing wrong therein. It was only when he shifted from Calcutta to Chandigarh and filed the ejectment application that his bona fide requirement is to be seen. The version on behalf of the tenant that the landlord did not bona fide shift from Calcutta to Chandigarh is neither here nor there. It is for the landlord to see his, requirement. According to the authorities below, the landlord never shifted from Calcutta to Chandigarh ; rather he was residing at Ludhiana and, therefore, the plea of the landlord, according to the authorities below that he had shifted from Calcutta to Chandigarh was not bona fide. This approach again is improper and illegal. Admittedly, one of the sons of the landlord is in Ludhiana and if for some time, he went there and resided with him, it did not mean that he does not want to occupy the demised premises bona fide for his use and occupation. Admittedly, one room and a store on the first floor of the house, are in his occupation. He has also got his ration card at Chandigarh. Not only that he has also got his gas connection transferred from Calcutta to Chandigarh. Thus, his residing for some time at Ludhiana with his son was of no consequence to doubt his bona fide requirement to occupy the premises for his own use and occupation. The premises, in dispute, are a part of the building a part of which is already inoccupation of the landlord. If under the circumstances, he wants to settle permanently in his own house, there is no bar for him in doing so. That itself would prove his bona fide need for his own house. The approach to judge whether the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation is to see whether it is his mere fanciful desire or his genuine need to occupy the premises. For that purpose, the requirement is to be seen from the landlord''s angle. Unless some ulterior purpose can be suggested or found, the need will ordinarily be bona fide in such cases. The tenant only suggested that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent and, therefore, his requirement was not bona fide. This plea cannot be accepted because before shifting from Calcutta to Chandigarh if the landlord wanted the tenant to enhance the rent, there was nothing wrong in it especially when nothing has been brought on the record to show that the landlord even after shifting to Chandigarh ask for the enhancement in rent. The tenant himself has created evidence by depositing a cheque in the Bank account of the landlord for Rs. 350/- that he (the landlord) wanted to enhance the rent of Rs. 320/- to Rs. 350/- per month. Such evidence can very easily be created as there is no dearth of such instances where the cheques in the Bank accounts of the landlords are deposited by the tenants to create documentary evidence knowing ill-well that that would be of no avail to them, now-a-days when we know that the cheques are accepted from third person without any difficulty much less verification for credit to the real holder of the Bank account. Soon the account was closed when the landlord came to know of the intentions of the tenant. In any case, unless the landlord shifted from Calcutta, there was no occasion for him to claim the premises for his bona fide requirement. The landlord, in the witness-box, has categorically stated that he had decided finally to settle at Chandigarh in the demised premises and that he will not let out the same to anybody as a tenant after getting the same vacated. There is nothing to doubt the said categorical statement of the landlord and for that, the observations of the Supreme Court in Baga Begum v. Abdul Ahed Khan 1979 (1) Rent C. R. 170, reproduced below, would be most illustrative:

The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire as the High Court has done in this case. It seems to us that the connotation of the term ''need'' or ''requirement'' should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act (Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966) which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. This appears to us to be the general scheme of all the Rent Control Acts, prevalent in other States in the country.

In a case like the present one where the landlord seeks ejectment of the tenant for his own occupation, the requirement of law u/s 13(3)(a) of the Act is that, (1) he is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned, and (ii) has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act, in the said urban area, Sub-section (3) (b) of Section 13 further provides that if the Rent Controller is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, he will pass the order of eviction. Prima facie if the above said two conditions are fulfilled, this claim of the landlord to seek ejectment will be deemed to be bona fide unless proved otherwise by the tenant by bringing on record the circumstances to disprove the bona fides of the landlord. The bona fides of the landlord could be examined only in the light of the allegations made by the tenant. For that purpose, the Rent Controller is not supposed to go into the family affairs of the landlord at the instance of the tenant because the enquiry is limited only as to whether the landlord''s desire to occupy the demised premises is bona fide or not. in any case, if the demised premises are part of the only house owned by the landlord or they are a part of the building a portion of which is already in occupation of the landlord, in such like circumstances, the presumption would be that the need is bona fide and the landlord would be entitled to seek eviction of the tenant. Both the circumstances exist in the present case. The landlord being of old age, his requirement to occupy the ground floor of his house is most reasonable and could not be doubted in any manner. His shifting from Calcutta to the State of Punjab should not be doubted because it is for him to decide where to live in old age. From the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is absolutaly nothing to come to the conclusion that the landlord''s requirement was not bona fide.

To advise the landlord that he should live with his sons where he could be looked after in the old age is not the function of the Rent Controller because the landlord knows better about his family affairs and the tenant is not supposed to go into those affairs because his rights are limited under the Act. The authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent have no applicability to the facts of the present case. As a matter of fact, it will be a question to be decided in each case as to whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not. In the present case, the whole approach being illegal and improper, the findings arrived at in this behalf are vitiated.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the authorities below are set aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenant. 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 after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and the rent for this period will be paid in advance by the tenth of every month.