Daya Nand Suhag vs Dharam Chand and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—The Rent Controller directed ejectment of Daya Nand Suhag the tenant, from the house in dispute on April 25. 1987. His appeal failed before the Appellate Authority. Hence he is in revision.

Dharam Chand and others, landlords, claimed ejectment of Daya Nand Suhag on two grounds ; firstly, that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the period'' from September 1, 1983 to May 31, 1984, and secondly, that Dharain Chand required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation he being an old person he required the assistance of others. He asserted that wife and children of Bhim Sain the other landlord, would shift to Gurgaon to reside with him Other landlord also used to visit Gurgaon to stay with Dharam Chand and thus for all the landlords the premises in dispute were bonafide required The petitioner Daya Nand Suhag contested the application, inter alia alleging that agreed rate of rent was Rs. 120/-per month and not Rs. 130/- par moath as claimed by the landlord He had sent rent for some period by money orders which were not accepted by Dharam Chand. It was admitted that Dharam Chand was residing in Gurgaon However, accommodation in his oecopution was sufficient With regard to other landlords it was stated that they were settled outside Gurgaon and were residing there with their families. On the pleadings aforesaid following issues were framed :-

(1) Whether the respondent'' is liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in para No. 9 of the petition ? Opp

(2) Whether application is bad for mis joinder of parties and cause of action? OPP.

(3) Whether petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition as alleged? OPP

(4) What is the rate of rent ? OPR

(5) Relief

The Rent Controller held that the agreed rent to be Rs. 130/- per month and directed ejectment of the tenant for non-payment of arrears of rent. He also found that Dharam Chand bana fide required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation other issues were also decided against the tenant. In appeal the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller end-directed ejectment of the tenant In appeal an application was filed for taking into consideration additional evidence that some of the landlords owned and possessed other houses at Gurgaon He also wanted to examine Clerk of the Assessing Authority of the House-tax. This application was also considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority.

Earlier Dharam Chand had filed another application for ejectment of Daya Nand Suhag from the House in-dispute en the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent of the prior period. Therein also it was disputed that the agreed rent was Rs. 130/-. However, the Authorities below directed his ejectment holding the test to be Rs. 10/- per mensem and tender of arrears of rent as invalid Vide separate order of today the said Revision Petition No. 3832 of 1S87 is being disposed of affirming the findings of the authorities below and holding the agreed rent to be Rs. 130/- per mensem. The evidence in the present case was also the same and thus for the reasons recorded therein it is held that the agreed rent was Rs. 130 per mensem I need no refer to the evidence produced in this case in detail Suffice it to say that the statement of the landlord Dharam Chand that the agreed rent was Rs. 130/-per mensem was corroborated by an entry in the house tax register showing the occupant as Daya Nand Suhag as tenant paying rent at Rs. J20/- per mensem. No infirmity in the finding in this respect recorded by the Authorities below exists. That being the position, it was lightly held by the Authorities below that the petitioner was liable to be ejected from the house in dispute for non payment of arrears of rent for the period mentioned above.

The other question debated during arguments relates to bona fide requirement of the landlord for occupying the house in dispute. It may be noticed that in a case where there are more then one landlord , ejectment of the tenant can be ordered if bona fide requirement of one of the landlords to occupy the premises in dispute is established. It is not necessary that necessity of all the landlords-applicants should be established to order eviction of the tenant Thus, it is matter al that landlords other than Dharam Chand are residing with their families outside Gurgaon. The other landlords are sons and daughters of Dharam Chand and Bhim Sain one of the sons having died. his legal representatives are also landlords Daughter of Dharam Chand who are married and are residing outside Gurgaon were also impleaded as parties In this revision petition, as argued, only bona fide requirement of Dharam Chand to occupy the house in dispute is being considered.

Before the Appellate Authority an application was filed for leading additional evidence in order to show that there was, another house belonging to Bhim Sain situated in Basti town where wife and children of Bhini Sain could reside and Dhanm Chand being living presently at Gurgaon could reside with them in that house. I do not find any merit in this contention. As already observed above each landlord''s bona fide requirements to occupy the house in dispute can be taken into consideration. It is the wish of the landlord to stay in his own house. Although Dharam Chand at present is living alone, his wife having already died, in his old age he needs some one to attend to him. The premises which he was occupying at Gurgaon were vacated by him as a notice had been served upon him by the landlord of those premises to vacate the same and thereafter he started residing in a shop. Even if he was alone to occupy the premises in dispute, there was no ground to discard his statement in this respect. In his old age his other relations, sons and their children obviously would be visiting him and if wife of Bhim Sain bad decided to shift to Gurgaon to stay with Dharam Chand, there is nothing unnatural about it. Even its some house of Bhim Sain in another locality is available and his wife and children could stay there, as has been argued, it cannot be said that Dharam Chand must live with them there. No doubt, mere will or desire of the landlord is not to be taken into consideration. However, it is a case where there is bona fide requirement of Dharam Chand to reside in the premises in dispute.

The mere fact that other landlords are also possessing some other property at Gurgaon or the Authorities below have failed to hold their bona fide requirements of keeping the premises in dispute, as noticed above, cannot be the ground to deny the relief to Dharam Chand. Finding of the Appellate Authority on both these points are affirmed.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is dismissed with costs. The petitioner is allowed 2 months time to vacate the premises.