Kewal Krishan vs Maheshweri Datt

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

The premises in dispute consisting of a Chubara was purchased by Kewal Krishan landlord from its original owner Baldev Raj on 13. 7. 1977 vide sale deed Ex. A 1 for Rs. 8,000/-. Maheshwar Dutt was already a tenant of the premises in dispute under the previous landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The present ejectment application was filed on 30-9-1982 inter alia on the ground that the landlord bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation. According to the landlord, at present he was residing in a rented premise where he was paying Rs. 30/- as rent p. m. Moreover, the landlord Baldav Raj of those premises was insisting to vacate the premises for that purpose he has also taken ejectment proceedings against him. According to the written statement, it was pleaded that the landlord was already occupying a residential building in the urban area concerned and therefore, was not entitled to ejectment of the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the accommodation in occupation of the landlord is definitely more spacious as compared with the one sought to be got vacated and therefore, also eventually the rent of that is certainly to be higher than the one which is of lesser than any accommodation. On that ground, the bona fide requirement of the landlord was negative. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the learned Rent Controller with the observation that the mere factum that the landlord is paying more rent for the premises in his occupation as tenant than the rent he is getting regarding the premises in dispute is not itself sufficient to conclude that he bona fide requires the premises in dispute for personal use and occupation.

The learned Counsel for the landlord submitted that since at present he was residing in a rented house for which he was paying Rs. 30/- as rent permensem when he was only getting Rs. 15/- P. m. for the premises in dispute. Moreover, the landlord Baldev Raj of that house is pressing him to vacate the premises and he has also taken proceedings against him. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, in the circumstances of the case, the requirement of the landlord was most bona fide. In support of his contention he referred to Mohar Singh v. Harinder Singh 1984 (2) R. C. R. 295, 1984 (2) RCR 295. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that it is a rending of fact and therefore, should not be interfered with in revision petition. Moreover, earlier also the landlord filed an application on this very ground which was dismissed and therefore, the present application was barred. According to the learned Counsel, the premises in dispute consist of one Chubara only and therefore, was not sufficient to meet the requirement of the landlord. In support of his contention, he referred to Sri. Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Others Vs. Rangaswamy Chettiar,

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record, I find that the landlord has been able to prove his bona fide requirement. Admittedly, landlord Kewal Krishan is residing in a rented house owned by one Baldev Raj and he is paying Rs. 30/- as rent p.m. It is also in evidence that Baldev Raj has taken ejectment proceedings against him. The shop on the ground floor of the premises in dispute is already in occupation of the landlord. Under these circumstances the requirement of the landlord is most bona fide. The approach of the authorities below in this regard is wrong, illegal and misconceived. When landlord Baldev Raj has already taken ejectment proceedings against him, the present landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute. It is not necessary for him to wait till the eviction order is actually passed against him. Even the ejectment application may not be necessary if the evidence is brought that the landlord of the rented premises wants his tenant to vacate the premises. It is also not disputed that the landlord is getting Rs. 15/- as rent per mensem for the premises in dispute whereas he is paying Rs. 30/- p. m. as rent for the accommodation he is occupying at present. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the requirement is most bona fide, as observed earlier.

The earlier ejectment application was dismissed mainly on a technical ground as the plan of the house which was being got vacated by the landlord was not produced. In any case, at that time, landlord Baldev Raj never wanted his tenant to vacate the premises. It was in the year 1982 when he moved the ejectment application, copy Ex. A5. It was under these circumstances that the present application was filed on 30.9.1982. Thus, the rejection of the earlier application in these circumstances was of no consequence. The findings of the authorities below being illegal and improper are liable to be set aside. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds. The orders of both the authorities are set aside. Eviction order is passed against the tenant. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller with in one month with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of three months period vacant possession of the tenancy premises would be delivered to the landlord and rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of each month.