Girwar Lal vs Om Parkash Goyal

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The previous owners of the demised premises were Babu Ram Brij Lal. They sold the same to Girwar Lal, landlord, vide sale deed dated August 23, 1971. The ejectment application was filed on October 27, 1977, primarily on the ground that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. A portion of the house, in dispute, was already occupied by him as a tenant prior to its purchase. It was pleaded that the present accommodation with him was insufficient for his requirement. It was also pleaded that be bad not vacated any residential building nor he was in occupation of any other residential building after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, except the portion in the house, in dispute. The tenant contested the eviction petition. He denied that the premises were bona fide required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. However, it was found by the Rent Controller that the premises, in dispute, were not bona fide required by the landlord. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the eviction petition. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this court.

During the pendency of this petition, the landlord filed the affidavit dated April 11, 1983, wherein it was stated that his two sons Rishi Kant Gupta and Bimal Kant Gupta, had been married on May 7, 1981 and July 9, 1981, respectively. It has been further stated that a son was born to the said Rishi Kant Gupta on April 11, 1982 whereas a daughter was born to Bimal Kant Gupta on August 1, 1982. Another affidavit dated August 12, 1984 was also filed in which it was stated by the landlord that he had retired from service as a Cashier from the Punjab National Bank, Dhuri, on March 31, 1984. An affidavit dated August 21, 1984, was filed on behalf of the tenant in this Court wherein it was stated that the landlord after filing the petition in this Court had converted a part of the residential building into a shop and, therefore, it was abundantly clear that the premises in occupation of the landlord were more than sufficient for his requirement.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the requirement of the landlord was most bona fide as his family consisted of his wife, two married sons and a daughter. The accommodation in his occupation in the residential building was insufficient to meet his requirement. According to the learned counsel, the Appellate Authority erred in considering the deorhi also as one of the rooms in occupation of the landlord. It appears that what weighed with the learned Appellate Authority was that there was nothing on the record to show that any of the child of the landlord was of a marriageable age or any of them was to be married soon. It has now been established by the affidavit dated April 11, 1983, filed in this Court that two sons of the landlord have been married during this period. Thus, taking into consideration the subsequent events, it is amply proved on the record that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and that the present accommodation in his occupation was insufficient to meet his requirement. In view of this affidavit, no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the tenant to show that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide.

The only assertion made on behalf of the tenant is that since the landlord has converted one of the rooms in the building as a shop, it clearly proved that the accommodation available with him was more than sufficient, has no relevance. There is nothing on the record to show that the said room was not being occupied by him for residence as well. The approach of the Appellate Authority was wholly misconceived; particularly when it also considered the deorhi as one of the rooms in occupation of the landlord. As observed earlier, from the facts and circumstances as they exist today, the requirement of the landlord is most bona fide.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The orders passed by both the authorities below are set aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenant. However, he is allowed two months'' time to vacate the demised premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for two months are deposited with the Rent Controller and the tenant also files an undertaking, in writing, with him, within one month, that he will vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession thereof after the expiry of the aforesaid period.