Captain R.K. Jairath and others vs Shri K.S. Singla

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

Originally, one Shrimati Savitri Wadera was the owner of the house No 8, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh. The tenant Shri K. S. Singla, was inducted by her on the first floor of the said house. She sold the house in September, 1978, to the present landlords i.e., Capt. R.K. Jairath, his brother Vinesh K. Jairath and their mother Mrs. Simla Jairath. The tenant, thereafter, started paying rent to the present landlords at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Later on, the rent was increased to Rs. 575/- per month on February 5, 1980. At present, he was paying the rent at the rate of Rs 600/- per month. In the ejectment application, it was pleaded that the premises, in question, i e , the first floor of the house, were required by Capt R.K. Jairath for his use and occupation and also for his fanily as he was going to marry in April, 1983. The ejectment application was filed on January 31, 1983. It was further pleaded that he was serving in the advance area in the Army as a Capt. and that his would-be wife was a Graduate who would seek admission in Post-Graduate Classes in Chandigarh and, therefore, he bona fide required the premises. It was also pleaded that the father of the Petitioner was owning house No. 700, Sector 8, Chandigarh and after the marriage of the Petitioner, separate accommodation on the first floor of house N0 8 Sector 16-A, was his bona fide need. In the written statement, tiled on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that though Capt. R.K. Jairath was one of the co-sharers of the premises, in dispute, yet he did not require the same for his personal use and occupation. According to the tenant, Petitioner No. 3, i e., Mrs. Bimla Jairath bad been pressing him to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month with effect from August 1, 1982 with 25 per cent increase therein every year, through her husband M. L. Jairath. Since he did not accede to this demand, the present petition had been filed with mala fide intention. The learned Rent Controller found that the petition for ejectment for the requirement of Petitioner No. 1 was not bona fide. Consequently, the same was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus maintained the order dismissing the eviction application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have come up in revision to this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the landlord Capt. R.K. Jairath was entitled to a separate accommodation after his marriage and, therefore in ordeer to see the bona fide requirement of the landlord, it was immaterial whether the accommodation in the house owned by his father was sufficient or not to accommodate his wife as well. According to the Learned Counsel, after his marriage Capt. R.K. Jairath was entitled to separate accommodation for which the house, in dispute, was purchased by him along with his brother and his mother. It was further contended that the mere fact that the landlords wanted to increase the rent of the premises, the same was of no consequence to judge the bona fide requirement of the landlords. In support of his contentions the Learned Counsel relied upon Jaswant Singh v. Capt. Naveen Chand 1981 (2) R. C. R. 287 and Bishan Lal v. Gopi Ram 1981 (1) R.C. R. 214. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that whether the landlord bona fide required the premises or not is a question of fact and there being a concurrent finding of fact by both the authorities below that the landlord did not require the premises for bona fide requirement, the tame could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Reference in support of this contention was made to Sri. Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Others Vs. Rangaswamy Chettiar, .

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

Admittedly the house, No. 8, Sector 16-A., was purchased in the name of three persons including Capt. R.K. Jairath. It may be that the landlord Capt. R.K. Jairath may be entitled to a separate accommodation after his marriage but in the present case there is evidence on the record that the landlady Mrs. Bimla Jairath, (the mother of Capt. R.K. Jairath) has been letting out different portions on the ground floor falling vacant immediately before the filing of the ejectment application on January 31, 1983. Not only that there is also evidence on the record that effort has been to increase the rent of the demised premises. In this view of the evidence, it could not be successfully argued that the requirement of Capt. R.K. Jairath was bonafide to occupy the premises. It is not denied by the landlords that their father, Shri M. L. Jairath, is the owner of the bouse, No. 700. Sector 8, Chandigarh, which is spread over an area of two and a half kanals and that the accommodation therein was sufficient for the family of Capt. R.K. Jairath. As observed earlier, he may be entitled to separate accommodation after his marriage, but from the totality of the circumstances brought on the record, it could not be successfully argued that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. In any case, even if two views are possible, that by itself is no ground for interference in the revisional jurisdiction ; particularly when, in the present case, it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.