Chander Mohan Mittal vs Behari Lal Gupta

This revision petition has been filed by the tenant whose ejectment from one room on the ground floor of House No. 20, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh was ordered by the Appellate Authority on December 1, 1988, Earlier the Rent Controller had dismissed the application for his ejectment filed by the landlord on December 16, 1986.

The ejectment of the tenant was claimed by Bihari Lal Gupta, the landlord, on the ground of personal necessity. The house in dispute is constructed on 10 Marlas of land. The landlord is in possession of the ground floor except one room which is in possession of the tenant. The accommodation with him was insufficient keeping in view his family members. The family of the landlord as stated by the Appellate Authority consisted of 12 members i.e, landlord, his wife and out of three sons two married sons who were having four and one children, respectively. The accommodation with them consisted of three rooms, one kitchen and one bath-room. Since the matter remained pending for all these years as the ejectment application was filed in 1982, the other son of the landlord also got married and two rooms on the barsati fell vacant which were also in possession of the landlord. These facts subsequently came into existence, are also being taken into consideration.

The tenant was using the room in his possession for commercial purposes but that will not change the character of the building which is a residential house. The landlord is, therefore, on proof of his ground of personal necessity, is entitled to ejectment of the tenant. The garage in dispute along with 3 rooms were earlier with the tenant on rent for residence. He vacated the rooms some time back. The building, therefore, remains residential.

Since the landlord was in possession of portion of the house in dispute he was not required to further state that he was not occupying any other house in the urban area or that he had vacated the same. From the application filed for ejectment of the tenant, it is clear that the landlord specifically stated the portion of the house in dispute in his possession which according to him was inadequate for his family as stated above. He further stated that he or his son had not occupied any other building in the urban area or vacated the same. Since as per case of the landlord, they had not vacated any building in the urban area, the question of pleading, vacating such building without sufficient cause does not arise. The ratio of the decision of the Full Bench in Banke Ram Vs. Smt. Sarasti Devi, holding that it required of the landlord to plead and prove that he was not occupying any other building or he had not vacated the same without any sufficient cause will not apply to the facts of the case in hand. The landlord has specifically stated that his son was residing in the house in dispute with him and not in his own house in Sector 38. Merely because son of the landlord has another house and was residing with his father in the house in dispute will not show the requirement of the landlord as mala fide. It is not the case of the tenant that either the landlord or his son ever occupied any other building or vacated the same. The requirement of Section 18(3)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which is applicable to Chandigarh stood complied with.

The appellate authority was right in observing that there was no mala fide on the part of the landlord to file the ejectment application in order to enhance the rent. The tenant is occupying the tenanted premises for the last several years and only 6/7 years of the tenancy once the rent was increased from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/-. However, for the last 8/9 years before filing of the ejectment application there was no enhancement in the rent. Jn these circumstances it cannot be said that the ejectment was claimed for extraneous reasons for enhancing the rent of the tenanted premises.

Keeping in view the number of family members of the landlord and the accommodation already available to him, there is no manner of doubt that the landlord bona fide requires the premises in dispute for his own occupation. Even if the barsati portion of the house in dispute was made available to the landlord, there is no change in the requirement of the landlord. His other son also got married during the pendency of these proceedings, making the total number of family members as fifteen. Five living rooms, out of them two being on the top-floor, along with kitchen and bath room, is held to be insufficient for a family of fifteen persons.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is dismissed with costs. The petitioner is allowed two months time to vacate the premises in dispute.

Petition dismissed.