Jiya Ram vs Purshotam Dass

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom eviction application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

The landlord-respondent sought the ejectment of his tenant, Jiya Ram, Petitioner, from the premises, in dispute, which consisted of a room on the second floor of the building which was rented out to him at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month. His ejectment therefrom was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, the landlord''s bona fide need of the demised premises was controverted. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord did not require the premises, in dispute, bona fide for his own use and occupation. It was observed by the Rent Controller that the landlord had admitted that the house in which the tenant was living had three rooms which were lying vacant and unoccupied. If the landlord had the necessity, he could shift to the said portion. The plea of the landlord that he wanted to re-costruct the house after pulling it down was not believed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation as his family consisted of his wife and three children. It was also observed that in the building in which they were living, they had one room and one Kothari in their possession. As a result, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

On May 23, 1984, the Respondent landlord undertook to file an affidavit as to whether the house purchased in the name of his son in the year 1979 was being occupied by him or not, as alleged by the tenant. Affidavit dated May 29, 1984, was filed by the landlord Respondent. The position taken therein was that his son Shrte Kishan had purchased only one-half share of the said house and that the remaining one-half share thereof was in possession of one Ramesh Kumar son of Manohar Lal at the time of the sale who still occupies the portion so purchased by his son, as a tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. It was further stated that he, alongwith his family, still resided in his ancestral house. In reply to the said affidavit, the tenant filed his affidavit dated May 30, 1980. According to him the landlord and his family occupied the said house purchased by him is the name of his son and that they had been living therein. It was specifically stated that it was wrong that any Ramesh Kumar son of Manohar Lal was ever a tenant in the said house or he was occupying the same as alleged by the landlord. In view of the contradictory stand taken by the parties, vide this Court order dated May 30, 1984, Sh. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, was appointed as the Local Commissioner to find out as to whether the landlord ever occupied the house purchased in the name of his son, and since when, the person who is said to be in occupation thereof at present, was there. He was further directed to find out whether the portion of the demised premises which was said to have been lying vacant had been let out to somebody or not during the pendency of the petition. The Local Commissioner submitted his report dated June 12, 1984. The Local Commissioner visited the said house when the parties alongwith their counsel were present there, on June 2, 1984. In order to arrive at the conclusions, he also recorded certain statements. Clearly, it has been found that Ramesh Kumar had not been living in the aforesaid house for the last several years as claimed by him and the landlord. It has been further found that though Ramesh Kumar was found to be in ostensible occupation of the house at the time of his inspection, but no proof of his being in occupation of the house was shown to him by Ramesh Kumar inspite of his asking him to show the ration card and any postal letters which he may have received at the said address; rather the voters'' list produced by him showed that the landlord Parshotam Dass was residing in the said house. Thus, in the opinion of the Local Commissioner, it was a case of temporary shifting of Ramesh Kumar to the ground floor of the house purchased by the landlord in the name of his son. Ramesh Kumar admitted before him that his father was residing at Bhiwani in a separate house in Mohalia Murari Lal Street since long.

As regards the demised premises, the local Commissioner found that therein Sh. Han Chand Jain son of Kanshi Ram Jain, a Veterinary doctor claimed himself to be a tenant on a portion consisting of two rooms and a kitchen without paying any rent for the last three and a half years. Thus, from the report of the Local Commissioner. It is quite evident that the stand taken by the landlord in his affidavit dated May 29, 1984, was found to be false. Thus, the finding of the Appellate Authority that the landlord bona fide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation is wrong and illegal. Under the circumstances, the requirement of the demised premises by the landlord could not be held to be bona fide at all when there is sufficient accommodation available with him in the house purchased by him in the name of his son Besides, some portion which had fallen vacant in the demised premises could also be occupied by him in case he bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation. Having failed to do so, his ejectment application was liable to be dismissed.

At the time of the arguments, the Learned Counsel for the landlord Respondent sought time to file objections to the report of the Local Commissioner The said report was filed in this Court on June 16, 1984. If any objections were to be filed thereto, he had sufficient time to do so. Besides, the report of the Local Commissioner is quite detailed and I do not find that any objections could be filed against the same

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent further contended that the Local Commissioner acted beyond the scope of the enquiry as he had recorded certain statements also I do not fund any force in this contention either. The statements were recorded by him for his own satisfaction to reach the conclusions. In any case no such objection was raised at the time when the said statements were recorded and both the parties with their counsel were present.

In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed with costs. That eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application is restored Since the landlord has not come with clean hands, the costs are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-.

Revision petition allowed.