Devinder Mohan vs Ram Parkash Kalia

J.V. Gapta, J.—This it landlord''s petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but was dismissed in appeal

The ejectment proceedings pertain to the residential house which comprises of a portion of the ground floor of the double storeyed building as shown in the site plan, Exhibit P 2 The tenant is occupying the premises on a monthly rent of Rs 6/. He was inducted thereon by the original landlord Om Parkash. The present landlord purchased the entire house vide sale deed dated October 19, 1981. He filed the ejectment application on November 17, 1981, primarily on the ground that the demised premises were required by him for his own use and occupation. It was averred in the application that he, his two brothers, mother and sister owned and possessed a double storeyed house as described is the site plan, Exhibit A. 3. The actual portion ff the above said house which was in occupation of the landlord was only a room on the ground floor of 10''X 10'' dimensions. The remaining portion of the ground floor and the entire first floor of the said house were alleged to be in occupation of his brother and other family members. The landlord''s family consisted of his wife and three children. The accommodation in his possession was stated to be insufficient to meet his requirement In the written statement, the tenant controverted the pleas raised by the landlord He stated that he was occupying the demised premises as a tenant for the last 34 years. It was also averred that he was in possession of a portion of the ground floor The remaining portion consisting of two rooms and one kitchen was in occupation of the landlord and that the accommodation already available with him was more than enough for his requirement On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that it was proved that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own and use and occupation Consequently'' the eviction order was passed in his favour. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and consequently, dismissed 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 it has been wrongly held by the Appellate Authority that the landlord was in occupation of two rooms and one kitchen in the building, in question According to the learned counsel, the said portion was a dilapidated one and had already fallen The landlord was only in occupation of a room in his ancestral house which was insufficient for his requirement Thus, argued the learned counsel, the finding of the Rent Controller, in this behalf, was correct and the same has been reversed arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures by the Appellate Authority.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.

There is nothing on the record to show that the landlord was occupying any portion of the house except a room therein The whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf is misconcieved, wrong and illegal. It has been wrongly observed by the Appellate Authority that in the ejectment application, the landlord nowhere averred that two rooms and a kitchen were in hit possession. Actually, the question of making any such averment by him did not arise because as a matter of fact, he was not in occupation of the said accommodation as found by the Appellate Authority. If the landlord was only occupying one room in his ancestral house, hit requirement was most bona fide Besides, he has purchased the house, in question for a separate and comfortable living and, thus, it could not beheld that his requirement was not bona fide. The approach of the Rent Controller in this behalf was perfectly correct.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant is restored. However, the tenant it allowed to two months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for two months are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month, and the tenant also files an undertaking, in writing, before the Rent Controller that he will vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession thereof, as ordered above.