Hans Raj vs Gaurt Shankar alias Tota

J.V. Gupta, J.—The landlord Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the oder of the Appellate Authority, ludbiana(sic) dated the 18th April, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controlled directing ejectment of the tenant Respondent has been set aside.

The ejectment of the tenant from the premises, which is a part of residential house, is being sought on the ground of bona fide requirement by the landlord for his own use and occupation. In para 2(b) of the application, dated 3rd December, 1974, the landlord stated "that the accommodation in possession of the Petitioner is insufficient for this own use and for the use of other family members. The Petitioner is not occupying any other residential house in Ludhiana City and he has not vacated any such building without any sufficient cause. Therefore the Petitioner bonafide requires the premises in dispute for occupation and for the occupation of his family members''. In reply thereto the tenant stated, that "contents of sub para (b) of the application are wrong and denied The Petitioner is having sufficient accommodation for his own me and occupation and for the use of his family members The Petitioner is guilty of conversion of the residential premises into non residential one with mala fide intention and as such is not entitled to the relied claimed for. The answering Respondent is an aged man and he along with his aged wife is residing in the premises in dispute for a period of over 10(sic) years and it will be a great injustice with him if he is ordered to be evicted. The Petitioner is having mere than sufficient accommodation in his possession. The dispute only arose between the parties when the Petitioner undertook to extend water pipe to the first floor subject to the enhancement of rent and which was not subsequently done by the Petitioner. The Petitioner in fact wants to increase the rate of rent and does not bona fide required ire the premises". Thus, it was specifically averred that the landlord is guilty of the reverion(sic) of a part of the residential premises into non residential one with mala fide intention and as such is not entitled to the relief claimed In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord, these averments were not controverted as such. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1 Whether the Petitioner requires the premises in dispute bona fide for his own use ?

Whether the Respondent is a statutory tenant ?

3 If issue No. 2 is not proved, whether a valid notice u/s 106 of the Tronsfer of Property Act was served ?

The learned Rent Controller, on issue No. 1, came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation In appeal, this finding of the learned Rent Cant-roller has been reversed by the Appellate Authority. It has been observed therein that "On the other hand it has come in evidence of the Respondent Appellant that the landlord , has been leasing out the part of the premises on the repeated occasions The so called necessity alleged by the Petitioner Respondent has not arisen immediately on the presentition of the application. As such, it can be termed as another device on the part of Hans Kaj. Landlord to get the premises under the possession of Gori Shanker to be leased out to another person on a higher amount of rent " Feeling aggrieved against this order, the landlord has come in revision to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the landlord Petitioner has vehemently contended that taking into consideration the large family of the Petitioner, consisting of two daughters, three sons and a wife, the accommodation is insufficient and landlord is the best judge of his requirements and since the tenant has failed to prove any mala fide intention on the part of the landlord, his need will be deemed to be a bona fide one and the finding given by the Appellate Authority is thus vitiated. It has also been argued that letting out a part of the premises by the landlord during the pendency of she litigation is of no consequence as his need is to be seen at the time of the application, when it was made. In support of this contention, he relied upon Labhoo Ram v. Seetal (1968) 70 P. L R. 258, Hans Roj v. Shrimati Ram Piari,1973 P.L.R 256 and C. L. Devar v. Shri Amar Nath Kapur, (1963)65 PLR. 644

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent tenant argued that the question of bona fide requirement is a question of fact and should not be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction He further contended that the landlord failed to prove the three necessary ingredient u/s 13 ( )(sic) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act, 1949(sic) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), particularly when the tenant took a specific plea in his written statement that the landlord has converted a portion of the residential premises into non-residential one with a mala file intention and the same were let out as godowns According to the learned Counsel, it was for the landlord to explain his conduct and the circumstances under which the same were let out as godowns in the year 1969 and then again in the year 1996(sic), during the peadency of the application for ejectment. Since he had offered no explanation in his statement, the inference drawn by the Appellate Authority, is correct and cannot be interfered within this revision.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length and have also gone through the case law cited above. It is well settled by now that the three ingredients of Section 13(3)(a) of the Act are to be read together. Reference in this respect may be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court, reported in Messrs Sant Ram Das v. Karam Chand, (1962) 64 P.L.R. 758 In para 20 thereof, it has been observed, that "the unquestionably correct position is that all the conditions mentioned in sub paragraph (i) have to be read together and it is the cumulative effect of the same that is to be Seen. So condition (a) has to be read along with condition (b) In this sub paragrapa. In the present case, the tenant specifically pleaded in the written statement that the landlord has rented out a part of the residential house to be used as godowns and has thus canverted the residential building into non-residential one. The landlord did not controvert this fact in the replication filed by him, nor the same was explained in the statement of the landlord that under what circumstances the said portion was given on rent as godowns. In the absence of any such evidence, the plea of The tenant under Clause (c) of section l3(3)(a)(i) of the Act that the landlord has vacated the premises after the purchase of the house by him in the year 1968, without sufficient cause, becomes very relevant. In a given case, a question may arise that if it is proved that the landlord has vacated such a building after the commencement of the Act in the urban area concerned, is he deprived to seek ejectment or can he still prove his bona fide required ment for his own occupation. Certainly in that situation, the landlord can seek ejectment, but then he will have to prove sufficient cause i. e. under what circumstances such a building was vacated and the one he is insufficient to meet his requirements. The argument of the learned Counsel for the landlord that another residential building'' occurring in Clause (b) means the building other than the one he is occupying, is not tenable. In order to find out the bona fide requirement of the landlord the premises in his occupation at the time of the application whether the same is part of the same building of which the rented premises is a portion or it is a separate building, are to be kept in view, it may be that in a given case a landlord may have been rising his residential building for his business etc. and in that case he may be able to explain that he is not occupying any other such building The cases cited at the bar in this respect are all distinguishable because in those cases it was found as fact that in spite of this, the need of the landlord was a bona fide one. In the present case, there is no evidence on the record that under what circumstances certain portion was rented out as godowns in the year 1969 after the purchase of the house by the landlord in the year 1968 and then again rented out in the year 1976. It is no gainsaying that it was for the landlord to prove the third ingredient of Clause (c) of Section (3(3) (a)(i) and in case he had done it, the circumstances to explain the same should have been brought on the record. Failing to lead any evidence in this respect, particularly when this plea was taken by the tenant in the written statement, is fatal to the case of the landlord Bona fide requirement, as observed earlier, is to be seen keeping in view all the three ingredients together and if there is evidence to prove either of the ingredients of Clause (b) or Clause (c), then it is tor the landlord to explain the tame by leading necessary evidence. Ingredients of Clauses (b) and (c) cannot be ignored while considering the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Clause (a) of Section 13(3) (a) (i) of the Act. In other words, in order to judge the bona fide requirement of the landlord, he must prove the other two ingredients and in case there is evidence to the contrary, he must prove the circumstances to explain in order to prove his bona fide requirement. In the present case, this evidence on the part of the landlord is lacking when admittedly he rented out part of the premises in his occupation after the purchase of the house, and, thus, suffered the effect of Clause (c) of Section 13 3)(a)(i) of the Act. The argument of the learned Counsel for the landlord that the requirement is to be seen at the time of the application, is therefore, not legally tenable as the same is not warranted by the provisions of Section 13(3)(a) (i) of the Act.

The Appellate Authority has considered the whole evidence on the record and has come to the conclusion, that "The induction of the tenant in the four rooms stands admitted and as well proved through the evidence of R. W. 1 and R. W. 2. The petition for ejectment was moved on 3. 12. 1974 and if Hans Raj, the landlord was having any necessity for more accommodation be could have kept the rooms with himself rather renting out any room in the year 19 6 to be used as godown Even the house-tax entry Ex. R. 4 to Ex. R. 7 do not contain that there were any godown. The landlord never thought of ejecting the Respondent-Appellant after 1968 when he purchased thit building up to the lime of filing this application. It is not the case that the reason of his requirement, i.e. his brothers and married sisters come to meet him, arose only at the time of the institution of this application. He had the same family members much earlier than the date of the application and similar requirement may have been there." The learned Counsel for the landlord was unable to show that how this finding arrived at on the appreciation of evidence is illegal or improper as could bo interfered with on the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7 It may be that while considering Clause (a) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act independenty); the landlord is the best judge of his requirements, but at the same time it cannot be said that his subjective satisfaction is itself sufficient to order ejectment of his tenant. Admittedly, the lest is to be an objective one and from the evidence on the record the Authorities under the Act are to come to the conclusion that the need as alleged is a bona fide one. Thus it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case to judge the bona fide requiment of the landlord.

lastly, the contention of the learned Counsel for the land. lord is that since the tenant has failed to prove the Mala fide intention of the landlord to increase the rent, his bona fide requirement will be presumed to exist and reliance in this respect has been placedon a judgment, reported in Smt. Chandra Wati v. Narain Dass, (1970) 72 P.L.R. 299. However I do not find any force in this contention either. It is for the landlord to prove his bona fide requirement and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be said that his requirement stands proved on this account alone However, it may be a relevant factor to appreciate the evidence on the record but this by itself cannot be sufficient, the claim as made by the landlord, is to be judged on the totality of circumstances keeping in view the provisions of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. In the present case, there was a specific allegation made in the written statement, as observed earlier, which has not been explained by the landlord either in the replication filed by him or while appearing as his own witness before the Rent Controller.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.