Hira Lal (Deceased) through his L.Rs. vs Ram Parshad

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below. J

Ram Parshad, landlord, sought the ejectment of tenant Hira lal (now deceased) who was in possession of the ground floor of the house, in dispute, on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ The ejectment was sought mainly on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his personal use end occupation and his family. He had got four children The eldest daughter was 15 years, the second was t3 years old. I hey were studying in 9th and 7th class respectively The other ground set up was that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and that they had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The ejectment application was contested on the ground that it was barred by the principles of res judicata as the landlord had already lost the case on the ground of personal necessity up to High Court it was also pleaded that the landlord was in possession of another house and. therefore, there was sufficient accommodation available with the landlord After traminp the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord did require the demised premises for his personal use and occupation and that the same had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation It was also held that the petition not barred by the principles of res judicata as alleged. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on January 23,1987. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the landlord filed the ejectement application on this very ground of personal necessity and also on the ground that the building had be come unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Both these grounds were found against him up to the High Court. The present ejectment application on the same grounds was not maintainable.

4 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition

The present ejectment application was filed on October 19 1984 before the Rent Controller whereas the previous ejectment application was filed somewhere in the year .97778, which was finally decided by the High Court on December 28, 1983. After the lapse of six or seven years the children of the landlord are likely to ground during the span and, therefore, the authorities below considering the facts and circumstances of the case concurrently found that the land lord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation xand that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habi tatioa. On the face of it, the question of res judicata did not arise when the landlord filed the subsequent application on the grounds of personal necessity and the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Both these grounds are such which go on changing with the lapse of time and, therefore, what is material is the gap between the earlier ejectment application and the subsequent ejectment application.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within a month with a further undertaking. is writing, that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord.