Kesho Lal Sharma vs Ran Singh Hooda

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Kesho Lal Sharma, hereinafter described as "the petitioner" directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Rohtak, dated 5.10.1996. By virtue of the same, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead dismissed an eviction petition filed by the petitioner.

The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed eviction petition against the respondent with respect to the property in question. The sole ground relevant for the purpose of the present revision petition is as to if the petitioner bona fide requires the property in question or not. He asserted that the petitioner had only two rooms in his occupation, out of which one is being used as a store. The petitioner has one married son who at the time when the petition was filed was likely to be transferred to Rohtak. The accommodation is insufficient.

The respondent contested the eviction application. There was no dispute raised about the relationship of landlord and tenant. The respondent''s case was that he was a tenant in the suit premises for the past 20 years. It was denied that the petitioner requires the property for himself or members of his family. The respondent used to look after the other portion of the house of the petitioner. The petitioner had shifted to Jammu where his son was married and posted. Plea was raised that, in fact, the petitioner had asked the respondent to purchase the property but the respondent could not afford the amount.

The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and with respect to the question in controversy held that the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for himself and for members of his family. The accommodation with him was sufficient.

The respondent preferred appeal. The learned Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and held that the necessary ingredients to show that the ground of eviction was available had not been pleaded. The petitioner had another house at Arya Nagar. He did not take the plea in the petition with respect to the said house at Arya Nagar. He concealed the material facts. Even otherwise, it was held that there was sufficient accommodation with the petitioner. As per the Appellate Authority, he had two independent rooms with verandah, kitchen and store. Accordingly, concluding that the requirement has not been shown to be bona fide, the appeal was allowed the eviction petition was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

On behalf of the respondent, reliance was strongly placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Banka Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi (1977) 79 P.LR. 112, so as to urge that necessary ingredients of the above said ground had to be impleaded otherwise the petition would not be maintainable. Indeed, that is the position of law. The purpose of the pleadings and why the Court insist for proper pleadings is that the other party must know the nature of the case that he has to meet. The pleadings should be complete so as to incorporate the necessary fact and the ground of eviction. If no prejudice is caused and necessary ingredients are available, in that event the Court will not be justified in rejecting the petition on the ground that there is lack of pleadings.

Here in the present case in hand, the petitioner in the eviction application had pointed out that he requires the suit premises for his personal requirement and that he has only two rooms, out of which one is used as a store. But he referred to the fact that his son who at the time of filing of petition was posted at Jammu and likely to be transferred to Rohtak. He also pleaded that he has insufficient accommodation to meet his requirement. These facts show that necessary ingredients were not only pleaded but the respondent was made aware pertaining to the ground of eviction and nature of requirement with co-related facts. It, therefore, can not be termed that it was a case of defective pleading to reject the claim of the landlord.

Confronted with that position, it had been pointed out that it has not been pleaded about the vacant accommodation in the house of Arya Nagar. Strong reliance was placed on Exhibit RW1 written by the petitioner. Its Hindi translation was made available to the Court. It reads clearly that if Krishan Kumar can go to the house at Arya Nagar, then he should collected the rent for the month of May, June and July. It further refers to the fact that Sham Chand must have paid the amount for May, June and July. The said letter seemingly has been read incorrectly by the Appellate Authority. It does not indicate that the house at Arya Nagar was lying vacant. There was no necessity to plead that any house as such was available.

The petitioner specifically pleaded that he only has two rooms, out of which one is being used as a store. It was not in controversy that during the pendency of the petition the married son of the petitioner was transferred to Rohtak. He has two children. The said accommodation thus available with the petitioner is totally insufficient. After all, he has a married son and two grandchildren living with him. Two roomed accommodation, out of which one room is very small and being used as a store, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as sufficient. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement. Unless it is a whimsical desire or the requirement is mala fide, the landlord should be left to decide the accommodation required by him.

On behalf of the respondent, it was urged that a flat had been offered to the daughter-in-law of the petitioner at Rohtak. But it has been pointed out during the course of arguments that it was not even vacant and, therefore, not accepted. The result is obvious that it is established that the petitioner bona fide requires the suit premises and that he did not have any suitable alternative accommodation. The judgment of the Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot be sustained.

For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Instead, the order of eviction is passed against the respondent giving the respondent two month''s time to vacate the suit premises.