Dr. Narinder Mohan Wadhera vs Romesh Chander

H.S. Bedi, J.—The present petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner who is the landlord seeking eviction of the respondent u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the ''Act'') on the ground that the premises in dispute were required for his bona fide personal need.

The facts of the case are as under:-

Vide registered sale deed dated 24th January, 1989 (Exhibit A-2) the premises in dispute were purchased by the petitioner from the earlier owners Smt. Kalasho alias Kailash Rani and Smt. Pushpa alias Pushpa Wati. On 15th June, 1989, an ejectment application was filed by the petitioner seeking to evict the respondent on two grounds; firstly the nonpayment of rent and secondly on the ground of personal necessity. As the first ground no longer survives no details need be given with respect to the matter but on the question of the personal need of the landlord it had been stated in the ejectment application that though he was already living in Zira in a rented premises, the accommodation in his possession was insufficient having one room whereas the properly from which eviction was being sought consisted of two rooms, a courtyard, a verandah, a kitchen and a deori. It was also stated as a ground for ejectment that the premises being occupied as a tenant by the petitioner at Zira had been rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 1507- whereas the rent that he was receiving from the demised premises was at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The averments of the petitioner in the ejectment application were substantially denied by the respondent and it was stated that the house which the petitioner was occupying as a tenant was bigger in size and that the petitioner was in fact in the business of sale and purchase of property and had purchased the same solely with the object of evicting the respondent on account of the strained relations arising out of. an earlier commercial transaction between them. The petitioner filed a replication to the reply in which it was clarified that the house in which the respondent was residing consisted of two rooms, a verandah and Deori but one room was in possession of the landlord. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

Whether the tender made on the first date of hearing is valid? OPR

Whether the applicant requires the demised premises bona fide for his own used and occupation? OPA

Relief.

As already stated, issue No. 1 was not pressed but on issue No. 2 the Rent Controller found that the need of the petitioner was not bona fide and that the demised property had been purchased by the petitioner solely with the object of ejecting the respondent on account of their strained relations; that the location and the nature of the property being occupied by the petitioner as a tenant was more suitable to his needs and finally that the evidence on the record showed that the entire property being occupied by him was in his possession. The Rent Controller accordingly dismissed the ejectment application and the appeal taken by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this petition.

Mr. Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the site plan Exhibit A3 which has been admitted to be correct by the respondent clearly shows that the petitioner was in occupation of only one room and in this admitted position the need of the petitioner was genuine as his family consisted of three grown up daughters and a doctor wife, who was employed in the Amritsar Medical College, who often visited him. He has also argued that from the site plan Exhibit A3 and the other evidence adduced it was clear that the demised premises did not have a proper bathroom or a kitchen which were necessary for comfortable living for a man of the standing of a doctor and as such the findings of the courts below that the need of the petitioner was not bona fide was not warranted. In conclusion he has urged that it was not for the court to substitute its opinion as to which of the properties was more suitable to his requirement as this was a matter for the landlord to decide as held by this Court in Krishan Lal Nanda Vs. Madan Lal, . He has also relied on Neena Thappar v. Avtar Singh. 1989 (1) RCR 653 that the anxiety of the landlord occupying inferior accommodation to shift to his own house was well founded and that fact by itself would be sufficient to prove his bona fide needs.

Mr. J. R. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent has however supported the judgments of the authorities below and has urged that the facts of the case clearly shows that the ejectment application was merely a device to get rid of the tenant as it was rather intriguing that despite the earlier litigation between the parties the petitioner had still chosen to purchase the house occupied by the respondent. He has urged that mala fide of the petitioner was further evident from the fact that he had not stated in the ejectment application that though he was only occupying one room as a tenant the rest of the accommodation in that house was not being occupied by his landlord. He has urged that this assertion which came in the replication for the suit was an after thought created only to defeat the case of the respondent.

After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that this petition deserves to succeed. It has come in the evidence that the petitioner was posted as a doctor in Zira and on completion of 20 years in the Government service took premature retirement in 1980 in order to start his practice in Zira. It is also in the evidence that the wife of the petitioner who was also a doctor earlier posted in the Medical College at Amritsar (but is stated to have retired from service now) and his three daughters the eldest studying in the M.Phil Class, second for her M.D. and the third for the B.Sc degree were also required to visit him in Zira as the petitioner could not get away on account of his medical practice. A look at the evidence of Yesh Pal AW3 who was the landlord of the premises being occupied by the petitioner as a tenant clearly makes out that he was occupying only one room. This assertion also finds support from the statement of the petitioner himself and is confirmed by the evidence of RW1 Rakesh Chander respondent where he did not categorically deny that the petitioner was in possession of only one room. I am also of the opinion that the observations of the courts below that as the access to the property in dispute was restricted and even a car could not reach them and as such the said premises were not suitable for the occupation of the petitioner, are not sustainable in the light of Kishan Lal Nanda''s case (supra). I am further of the opinion that even assuming for a moment that the petitioner was in fact occupying the entire property belonging to Yesh Pal it is evident that as the said property had no kitchen or a bathroom or sewerage (and being a rented property the petitioner could not provide such facilities to himself) the need of the petitioner, keeping in view his status as also that of his family, was perfectly bona-fide.

For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed; the order of the Rent Controller as, also the Appellate Authority is set aside and the ejectment of the respondent is ordered. The respondent is however allowed two months ''time to vacate the premises in dispute provided all the arrears of rent up to date are deposited within a period of one month from today and an undertaking is filed in this court of the Rent Controller that on the expiry of the aforesaid period the vacant possession of the said premises will be handed over to the s petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.