Hazara Singh Kandolha vs Madan Lal

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

The landlord-Petitioner, who is a retired Armed Forces personal, filed the ejectment application against the tenant Madan Lal, Respondent, on February 1, 1982, seeking his ejectment from the ground floor except annexe and garage of house No. 78, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. According to the landlord, the premises were let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,250/- with effect from January 1, 1981. The tenant paid advance rent for one month, but did not pay the rent subsequently. The premises were let out for residence whereas the tenant was running a guest house therein. The ejectment was sought on the grounds that the tenant was in arreas of rent, he had changed The user thereof and that the landlord required them for his own use and occupation. According to the landlord, he was in Air Force and had retired as a wing Commandor in the year 1975. Later on, he started practice as an Advocate at Delhi where he met with a serious accident in December, 1979 and underwent a major heart operation. He now wanted to shift to Chandigarh and to live in his own house with his family consisting of his wife, an unmarried daughter and an unmarried son. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 2.870/- per month the rent had been paid up to October 31, 1981 whereas it was tendered on the first date of hearing for the period from November 1, 1981 to February 28, 1982. It was also pleaded that the premises were taken on rent for running a guest house and, thus, the question of change of user thereof did not arise. As regards the bona fide requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises, the same was denied. According to the tenant, since retirement, the landlord was residing in Delhi with his entire family. He never resided in the house in question. Therefore, he had no intention to shift to Chandigarh. He only wanted increase in the rent to which he did not agree; hence the ejectment application was filed by him. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the rent was Rs. 2,870/- and not Rs. 3, 250/- per month as claimed by the landlord It was also found that the landlord had been paid rent up to October 31, 1981 and with effect from November 1, 1981, rent was tendered on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per month. On the question whether the landlord required the premises, in dispute, bona fide for his own use and occupation, the learned Rent Controller found that his simple deposition that he had decided to settle at Chandigarh was not sufficient when he was a practising lawyer at Delhi. Accordingly, it was held that the landlord did not require the demised premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

During the pendency of this revision petition, the landlord also moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 5509-CII of 1986, for bringing on record the subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency of the litigation between the parties. Reply to the said application has been filed on behalf of the tenant. In the said application, it has been stated that the applicant has become a member of the High Court Bar Association as was evident from receipt No. 2738 dated July 23, 1986 and that he had also become a member of the District Bar Association, Chandigarh, as was clear from receipt No. 2155 dated July 22, 1986. He has further stated that he had also applied for the allotment of a chamber in the District Courts vide his application made in the month of July, 1986. In reply to the same, it has been stated that the said evidence has been created for the purpose of this petition.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that from the evidence on the record; particularly, the letter, mark A, dated November 1, 1981 it could not be concluded that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,870/- per month. According to the learned Counsel, the whole conduct of the tenant speaks for itself. In the first instance, he summoned the daughter of the landlord in order to prove the two letters, marks A and B. Later on, for the reasons best Known to him, she was given up Then he moved an application before the Rent Controller for specimen signatures of the landlord which were given by him When the landlord appeared in the witness box, these two letters were put to him alleging that they were written by him. After the evidence was closed by both the parties, the tenant moved an application dated February 24, 1983, whereby he wanted to summon the daughter of the landlord without naming her in order to prove the said two letters. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the reliance has been wrongly placed by the authorities below on the said two letters in coming to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,870/- per month. The learned Counsel further contended that the requirement of the landlord was most bona fide. He had no other house except the house, in dispute. After his retirement since he had met with an accident in the year 1979, the premises were let out, but now, because of his ill-health and family circumstances, he wanted to shift to Chandigarh and to practise here. Thus, on the facts, and circumstances of the case, his requirement was bona fide

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

From the letter dated November 1, 1981, mark A, it could not be concluded that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,370/- per month. Reading the letter as a whole, it is quite evident that the rate of rent was Rs. 3,250/- per month. According to the said letter, the tenant was required to pay Rs. 2,870/- towards the rent for that month and to pay the balance amount of Rs. 380/- as the instalment of his sons house at Mohali. The total of these amounts comes to Rs. 3,250/-. That being the situation, the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,87./- per month was patently wrong.

Faced with this situation, the learned Counsel submitted that in any case even if the rate of rent was Rs. 3,250/- per month, the tenant was not in arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord with effect from February 1, 1981; rather he was in arrears of rent only for four months for which the rent was tendered on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 3,250/-. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the question of non-payment of the arrears of rent did not arise. As a matter of fact, the authorities below have mainly discussed the evidence on the question of rate of rent and since according to the findings of the authorities below the rate of rent was found to be Rs. 2,870/- per month, the evidence of the landlord that the tenant was in arrears of rent from February 1, 1981, was disbelieved. Apart from the bald statement of the tenant that he had paid the rent up to October, 1981, there was no cogent evidence on record in this behalf. In any case, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the tenant was not in arrears of rent even at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per month, he is liable to be ejected on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlord to occupy the premises. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf is wholly wrong illegal and misconceived.

According to the observations of the Appellate Authority:-

As regards the bona fide necessity of the landlord to shift to Chandigarh, no good and valid reason has been given by the landlord for shifting to Chandigarh. It is admitted that the landlord is practising at Supreme Court at Delhi. He and his family are living there. So his contention that he wants to lead his retired life at Chandigarh was rightly not accepted by the learned trial Court......

are wholly misconceived. There is nothing on the record to show why not to belive the landlord when he wants to shift from Delhi to Chandigarh on account of his health and family circumstances. Admittedly, he has no other house in the urban area concerned; rather this is the only house he has constructed here during his life time. It is to be emphasised that normally, the Rent Controller should give weight to the statement on oath made by the landlord in that behalf. It is his decision on that point which should prima facie prevail and the Rent Controller could not ordinarily become the judge of his needs unless material has been brought on the record by the tenant to show that the desire of the landlord to occupy the house for his residence was not genuine and the application for eviction had not been filed bona fide. The only suggestion made by the tenant was that the landlord wanted to increase the rent to which he did not agree; hence the former filed the ejectment application against the latter. There is absolutely no evidence to this effect; rather the facts and circumstances of the case are such that the requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises is most bona fide. Besides, he has filed an affidavit in this Court that he has taken certain steps to shift from Delhi to Chandigarh. He is already occupying a portion of the house, in question, which is insufficient for his requirement.

Consequently, this revision-petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenant with costs. However, he is allowed three months time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller, within one month, along with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period of three months, he will vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord. The rent for this period shall be paid monthly in advance by the tenth of every month.