Gurbax Singh vs Mal Singh Nagra

J.V. Gapta, J.—This is landlords revision petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Control-ler, but the same was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

The landlord Gurbux Singh, sought the ejectment of the tenant, Mal Singh, from the residential house, No. 220, Sunder Nagar, Passey Road, Patiala. The said house was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 350/-per month in the year 1977. The landlord was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India and retired therefrom on February 28, 1983. In the ejectment application, which was filed on February 13 1982, the tenant''s ejectment therefrom was sought on the ground that the landlord was residing in a rented house and that he bona fide required the demised premises for his use and occupation. His family consisted of his mother, his wife and three children. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the landlord was occupying a house in the Ram Gali, Patiala, which was very comfortable and convenient for his and his family''s living. It was on that account that the house, in dispute, was given on rent after construction by him. The afore-said house was quite sufficient to accommodate the landlord''s family and, therefore, his requirement of the demised premises was not bona fide. The Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord required the premises for his use and occupation bona fide and that he was not occupying any other premises in the urban area concerned; nor he had vacated any such premises without sufficient cause. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller primarily on the ground that the landlord had failed to prove as to what was the accommodation with him where he was residing at present and that the same was not sufficient for the requirement of his family. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

During the pendency of this revision petition, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 327-CII of 1986 under Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of the ejectment application was filed on behalf of the landlord. By virtue of the said application, the landlord wanted to take an additional plea of ejectment as provided u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), which provides for the right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to certain persons. Reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the tenant.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

In this case, the landlord produced his landlady Shrimati Shanti Devi as A. W. 3, whose house he was occupying as a tenant. She categorically stated that the rented accommodation in occupation of the Petitioner comprised of one room and one store. During her cross-examination, a suggestion was made that the landlord was in possession of three rooms, one kitchen, one verandah and one courtyard, which she categorically denied. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion from the solitary statement of Shrimati Shanti Devi, A. W. that it could not be concluded that the accommodation at present in occupation of the landlord was insufficient. The whole approach of the learned Appellate Authority in this behalf was wrong and misconceived. In the absence of any rebuttal to the said statement of A. W. 3, there was nothing on the record to come to the conclusion that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was more than one room and one store. Thus, the finding arrived at by the Appellate Authority is vitiated. Apart from the above, it is not disputed that the landlord has retired on February 28, 1983, from the military service and he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act as introduced by Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985. That being so, the Petitioner falls within the definition of the "specified landlord" and he could seek the ejectment of the tenant if an affidavit to the effect that he did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside was filed. In paragraph 5 of the afore-mentioned miscellaneous application, necessary averments in that behalf have been made by the landlord. In reply to the said paragraph, it was stated on behalf of the Respondent that the ground of amended provisions is not available to the applicant. As the sole ground on which eviction of tenant has been denied is that the landlord has failed to prove that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation which provision is still there in amended Act. However, there is nothing on the record to show that the landlord owns and possesses any other suitable accommodation in the urban area concerned. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the landlord has proved his bona fide requirement of the demised premises.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller evicting the tenant from the demised premises is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed 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 with a further undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period of two months, the premises would be vacated and the vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlord.