Jai Ram vs Ram Partap

A.D. Koshal, J.—Some of the facts giving rise to this petition for revision of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Hissair, on the 9th of March, 1973, are not in dispute and may be stated at the outset. The petitioner before me entered into the residential building in dispute, which is situated at Sirsa, as a tenant under one Nand Lal en the 31st of August, 1957, the rate of rent agreed upon by the two of them being Rs. 25/- per month. On the 18th of May, 1971 the respondent purchased the said building from Nand Lal abovementioned and became the landlord qua the petitioner who had by then become a "statutory tenant" therein. A little less than two months before that, i.e., on the 29th of March 1971, the respondent and his brother Kirpa Ram sold for Rs. 40,000/- a shop situated in Sirsa wherein they had teen residing till then along with their father. They vacated the shop and the respondent purchased a house in Sirsa in which he took up his residence and is living now with his wife and two sons. That house consists of a courtyard and a room hiving the dimensions 20'' x 13'' and divided into two by an arch. In plan Exhibit A.I. that house in shown to the west of the house of Atma Ram Sethi and the east of the house of Shri Radha Kishan, while the building in dispute is shown in red and consists of a room having the dimensions 16''X 8'', 9", another room having the dimensions 20'' x 11'', a store having the dimensions 8'' x 9'' a kitchen, a verandah, a shed and a courtyard. The built area of the building in dispute is roughly double of that which is available to the respondent in the house at present occupied by him.

On the 24th of June, 1971, the respondent instituted an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for the ejectment of the petitioner from the building in dispute on the following two grounds :

(a) The respondent required the building bona fide for his own residence. The house presently occupied by him was insufficient for his needs and there was no room available for guests and visitors nor one which could be used separately by any ailing member of the family.

(b) The petitioner has impaired the utility and value of the building.

The learned Controller held that the alleged requirement of the building by the respondent was not proved to be bona fide. The other ground, urged by the respondent in support of his application was also found proved. In these premises the Controller dismissed the application which was, however, accepted be the, appellate Authority with a finding that the respondent required the building bona fide for his own residence. In this connection he remarked :

It has to be seen whether his desire to live in a bigger house more comfortably with his wife and two grown-up sons can be turned down. * * * When he was financially weak he spent the days in one room but now when fortune has favoured (him) and he wants to live comfortably to keep his status, he cannot be debarred. He is a master of his requirements in which Rent Controller cannot interfere.

Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

Mr. Kaushal has urged that the respondent cannot evict the petitioner from the building in dispute inasmuch as he (the respondent) does not fulfil the conditions laid down in that behalf by section 13(3)(i) of the Act. Those conditions are :

(a) he requires it for his own occupation ;

(b) he is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned ; and

(c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of his Act, in the said urban area ;

* * * *

According to Mr. Kaushal none of these conditions is satisfied in the case of the respondent inasmuch as :--

(1) the respondent has not shown that there was sufficient cause for his vacating the shop which he sold on the 29th of March, 1971,

(ii) the respondent is occupying a house (the one purchased by him on the 18th of May, 1971) in the urban area of Sirsa, and

(iii) the alleged requirement of the respondent is not bona fide.

I do not land any merit in the contention raised by Mr. Kaushol. The shop sold by the respondent on the 29th of March, 1971, had to be vacated because of its sale which was in itself sufficient reason for the respondent to give up its occupation, so that conditions (c) is amply fulfilled. In regard to condition (b) it is to he borne in mind that the interpretation placed on it by a Full Bench of this Court in Sant Ram Das Raj Kalka Vs. Karam Chand Mangal Ram, , is that it would be fulfilled even if the landlord is occupying another residential building in the same urban area which does not meet his requirement and is not adequate for his needs. The house at present is-, occupation of the respondent consists of one big room and a courtyard and it is obvious that his family which consists of himself, his wife and two sons cannot live comfortably therein He would need a room for himself and has wife and at least another, if not two more, for his two sons who are admittedly grownup. That house cannot, therefore, be regarded as sufficient to meet the ordinary requirement of the respondent''s family and is not, therefore, a house of the type contemplated by condition (b) as interpreted in Sant Ram Des Raj v. Karan Chand (supra) Condition (b) must, therefore, re held to have been fulfilled by the respondent.

In regard to condition (a) also the respondent appears to be on sure ground. The building in the dispute certainly affords better accommodation wherein the respondent can live with his family in comfort which is lacking in the house at present in his occupation.

For the reasons stated, I find no ground to disturb the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.