Chaman Lal Sehgal vs Prem Nath Kalia

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenants petition against whom application for ejectment was dismissed by the Pent Controller, but eviction order was passed in appeal.

The landlord Prem Nath sought the ejectment of Lis tenant Chaman Lal from the house in dispute situate in Jullundur interalia on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. At the time of filing the ejectment application in September. 1981 it was alleged by the landlord that he was employed in Allahabad Bank at Jullundur and was likely to be transferred after completing his three years'' tenure there; he was provided with Bank accommodation but the same was insufficient for the needs of his family which consisted of six children besides his wife living with him It was further pleaded that two of his sons ate doing card-board business in one room of house situate in Kot Kishan Chard Jullundhar, belonging to the landlord. That borne consisted of three small rooms out of which two are occupied by his old parents. In these circumstances the demised premises were required for his own use and occupation and for the members of his family. Another ground taken was that the tenant had demolished a latrine and bath room built on the first floor and converted the same into living room, which was diminished the value and utility of the demised premises. In the written statement the tenant denied the genuineness of landlord''s personal necessity and of impairing the value and utility of the house. An objection was also raised that the boundaries of the demised premises were not shown correctly in the site plan filed along with the ejectment application and farther that no plan of the accommodation in occupation of the landlord had beer fled. Re-plication on behalf of the landlord was filed, wherein it was pleaded that complete details of the house in occupation of the landlord in Kot Kishan Chand have been mentioned in the petition and that satisfied the requirement of law.

On trial the learned Rent Controller negatived Both the pleas of the landlord and thus dismissed the ejectment application.

In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the Rent Controller was wrong in holding that the accommodation under occupation of the landlord was sufficient. It was also observed that the learned Rent Controller did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter that what would happen to the official accommodation after his transfer. Thus the requirement of the landlord was found to be bonafide one. On the other ground also the learned Appellate Authority found that:

Thus I do not feel any hesitation in agreeing with this contention of the learned counsel for the landlord appellant that bath room and latrine in dispute have been converted into a room by the tenant respondent. That being so, he has made material alterations, which are likely to diminish value and utility of the demised premises

In view of these findings the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

During the pendency of this petition the tenant, Chaman Lal, filed his affidavit dated July 26, 1983, wherein it was stated that the landlord has been transferred on promotion in Allahabad Bank from Jullundhur to Ambala Cantt about three months ago where he has since shifted. It has been further stated therein that at Ambala Cantt he has been provided with official accomodation on the first floor of the said Branch. According to the tenant the said accommodation is more than sufficient for the landlord and his dependant family members In reply there to the landlord Prem Nath also filed an affidavit dated July 26, 1984, wherein he stated that again from Ambala Cantt he has been transferred to Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh vide order issued by the Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank, Chandigarh, dated July, 1984. It was further stated therein that on transfer to Ambala Cantt fr"m Jullundhur, though he was provided with official accommodation, but he did not shift his children from Jullundhur. Another averment was also made that he was of 52 years of age and as per service rules of Allahabad Bank the age of retirement was 55 years and, therefore, h" was to retire soon.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the accommodation already under occupation of the landlord in Kot Kishan Chand was more than sufficient for his requirements and he purposely did not produce the site plan of the said accommodation and, therefore, in these circumstances the learned Rent Controller rightly found that the said accommodation was sufficient to meet the requirement of the landlord, but the learned Appellate Authority has reversed the said finding arbitrarily and whimsically. In support of this contention strong reliance was placed on Mohan LaJ Jain v. Mohan Lal and another 1973 R. C. J. 249. It was further contended that there were five rooms in Kot Kishan Chand house and not three small rooms as alleged by the landlord. According to the learned counsel it is mere show of the landlord, whose bonafide requirement is to be seen by the authorities under the Act.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this petition. Primarily whether the landlord bonafide require! the premises for his own use and occupation or not is a question of fact. Moreover, in the present case it has been further found that the accommodation already under occupation of the landlord was insufficient to meet the requirement of his family, which consists of six children and his wife besides his parents The authority relied upon in this behalf i. e, Mohan Lal Jain''s case (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the present case. In that case it was held that unless there was clear finding on the record as to the accommodation in possession of the landlord, it cannot be said that the existing premises are not reasonably sufficient for his needs. In that context it was observed that even no plan of that house was put on the record to indicate as to whether the premises in the possession of the landlord are insufficient for the requirement of his family including that of his married son. "Thus it will be a question of fact in each case as to whether the accommodation already in possession of the landlord was sufficient or not. As observed earlier, in the present case the learned Appellate Authority believed the version of the landlord and observed as under :

There is not much dispute so far as the question of availability of accommodation in Kot Kishan Chand is concerned. According to the landlord there are only three small rooms in the said house out of which two are occupied by his old parents and one is occupied by his sons for carrying on their card board business. Though the stand of the tenant-respondent was that there were six rooms in the said house but during the course of evidence be himself deposed that there were four rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. Thus the stand of the respondent was inconsistent In such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the landlord appellant.

In this view of the matter this petition fails and is dismissed with costs However the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for three months is deposited with the Rent Controller within one month.

Revision petition dismissed.