Hardial vs Harbans Singh and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1167, 1187 and 1188 of 1984 as question involved is practically the same.

The building in dispute is a residential one and consists of three storeys. There are many co-sharers who are the owners of the said building Different portions of the said building are occupied by different tenants. The landlord, Har Dayal was also a tenant of some portion in the said building Vide sale deed dated 28th April, 1975 (Ex. AW-2/1) he purchased the entire building from one Mahesh Kumar alias Ram Lal. In the year 1978 he filed these three ejectment applications against different tenants inter alia on the grounds of nonpayment of rent, subletting, personal necessity for his own use and occupation of the demised premises, building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation the tenant having impaired the value and utility of the building. Two ejectment applications, giving rise to C. R No. 1167 and C. R. No. 1188 of 1984 have been dismissed by the authorities below on the ground that the landlord has failed to prove that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, whereas in the third ejectment application, giving rise to C. R. No 118 of 1984 it was found by the Rent Controller that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlord succeeded in establishing that he bonafide requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. Consequently, eviction order was passed. However, in appeal the learned Appellate Authority maintained the finding of the Rent Controller as re-girds the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but reversed the finding as regards the personal requirement of the landlord. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with this, the landlord Har Dayal has filed these three petitions in this Court.

As observed earlier, in C. R. Nos. 1167 and 1188 of 1984 the controversy between the parties is as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not. On the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found therein that the tenants in those petitions were inducted by one Onkar Nath originally, who later on sold his shares to Rajinder Parshad vide sale deed dated 16th July, 1975 Since the landlord Har Dayal has purchased the share of his vendor Mahesh Kumar alias Ram Lal, therefore, it could not be successfully argued that he was the landlord qua the tenants, who were inducted by Onkar Nath one of the co-sharers originally. The judgment reported as Mathra Dass v. Smt Earn Piari 1982 (1) R. C. J. 447 : 1982 C. L. J. 20, relied upon by the Learned Counsel in this behalf that one of co-sharers is entitled to seek ejectment of the tenants from the joint property, has no applicability to the facts of the present case Admittedly, the tenants in there two ejectmant applications were not inducted by Mahesh Kumar vendor They were inducted by other co-sharers, who had not sold their share in favour of Har Dayal Therefore, on the basis of sale deed Exhibit AW-2/1, executed by Mahesh Kumar in favour of Har Dayal, he could not claim himself to be the landlord qua those persons who were inducted by other co-sharers. The proper remedy, if any, for the landlord would be to seek hit remedy in a Civil Court to reject the Respondents in those petitions by providing his title qua them.

As regards the ejectment application giving rise to C R. No. 187 of 1984, it is the common case of the parties now that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between them because in that case admittedly the tenant Mohar Singh was inducted by Chuni Lal, whole share has been purchased by Har Dayal landlord vide sale deed dated 28th April, 1975 (Ex. AW-2/1) The Rent Controller passed the eviction order against the tenant on the ground that the landlord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and the earlier accommodation in his occupation was insufficient to meet his requirement, whereas the said finding has been reversed by the learned Appellate Authority who has come to the conclusion that the accomodation in occupation of the landlord was sufficient to meet hit requirement, as one of his sons Roshan Lal was living separately from his father in a separately accommodation One of the considerations which weighed with the Appellate Authority was that it was not understandable that what charge or conditions occurred in the family of the landlord which necessitated him to file the ejectment application after three years of the purchase of the house, and how the accommodation in his occupation became insufficient to meet his needs.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant evidence on the record It is in the evidence and not disputed that the landlord has got three married sons betides three daughters who have been married. There are 11 grand children of these three married sons. Even if one of the sons is living separately in a separate accommodation, even then there are two married sons living with the landlord Admittedly the landlord before the purchase of the house in dispute was living in a portion as tenant therein There being two married sons, the landlord is entitled to eject his tenant for their separate accommodation. It is in the evidence and not disputed that the landlord has no other house, except the house in dispute, in the urban area concerned, nor the two married sons, who are living with him, are in occupation of any other building On these facts, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord has succeeded in establishing his bonafide requirement. But this finding has been reversed by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily and whimsically. Taking into consideration the number of the members of the family living in the accommodation in occupation of the landlord at present, it could not be said that it was sufficient to meet his requirement. The fact that the application was filed after three years of the purchace of the house proves that the application was moved when the landlord bonafide requised the premises. That fact cannot be taken against the landlord, rather it proves his bonafides. The approach of the learned Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly misconceived. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is liable to be accepted.

Consequently, C R No. 1167 and C R. No. 1188 of 1984 fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs C. R. No 1187 of 1954 is allowed, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller, directing the ejectment of tenant is restored, with no order as to costs However, the tenant Mohar Singh is allowed three months time to vacate the premises, provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for three months, is deposited with the Rent Controller within one month, with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period, the premises shall be vacated the vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord.