Kishan Chand Verma vs Shri Hari Om Gautam

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

The landlord Kishan Chand Verma sought the ejectment of his tenant, Hari Om Gautam, from the demised premises on the ground that he had retired from the service on September 30, 1979, and after his retirement, he wanted to settle in his own house. He was living at Delhi. The landlord also stated that one room in the building was in his occupation which was not sufficient for his residence. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the premises in dispute, were not required by the landlord for his own use and occupation as he was already residing at Delhi in his own house. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had no bona-fide need to reside at Bassi Pathana as he had sufficient accommodation at Delhi. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application- Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

During the pendency of this revision petition, the landlord moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4040-CII of 1986 under Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of his ejectment application in view of the insertion of Section 13-A to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act) by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985. Notice of the said application was given to the tenant, but no reply thereto has been filed by him.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the landlord was Government employee and that he had retired from service on September 30, 1979. He had filed the ejectment application on May 11, 1982, as he wanted to shift from Delhi to his house at Bassi Pathana. According to the learned Counsel, the one room in the building, in dispute, was insufficient for his accommodation and, therefore, he bona-fide required the premises of his own use and occupation. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf, argued the learned Counsel, is wrong, illegal and misconceived.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

It is no more disputed that the landlord retired from service on September 30, 1979. That being so, he is entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act, as yet the period of one year has not elapsed from the date of the commencement of the amendment Act 1985. However, without allowing the landlord to amend the ejectment application, from the evidence on record, it is amply proved that the requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises at Bassi Pathana was bona-fide. The only ground taken by the authorities below to negative the plea of the landlord is that since he was residing at Delhi in in his own house, there was no occasion for him to come Bassi Pathana. This approach is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. If a person after his retirement from service, wants to shift to his parental house then simply because he was living at some other place was itself no ground to doubt his bona-fide requirement. It may be that the landlord , may like to rent out the house at Delhi and to occupy the premises, in dispute, at Bassi Pathana, for which he is getting a very nominal rent. There is nothing wrong or improper if the landlord decides in that manner. There is nothing in evidence that the landlord was doing anything else except to live at Delhi. The landlord has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that he required the demised premises for his residence as he wanted to reside in the house at Bassi Pathana. His near relatives are residing at Bassi and his nearest relatives are also risiding in Punjab. The desire of a person to live near his relations is most natural. In the present case, on the basis of the evidence on the record, it could not be held that the requirement of the landlord was not bona-fide. Thus, the whole approach of the authorities below being wrong and illegal, the findings arrived at are vitiated.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the authorities below are set aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenant. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises: provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are paid or deposited within one month with the Rent Controller with a further undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, possession will be handed over to the landlord and the rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.

It will not be out of place to mention here that u/s 13-A of the Act, the landlord was required to indicate his date of retirement, and furnish his affidavit to the effect that he did not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside, the recover possession of the demised premises, for his own occupation. All these requirements are fully complied with in this case. Besides, Sub-section (2-A), added to Section 19, by the amending Act, inter alia provides that if after an order u/s 13-A, a landlord does not occupy the building for a continuous period of three months from the date of such eviction, or lets out the whole or any part of such building from which the tenant was evicted, to any person other than the tenant in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (4-A) of Section 13, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to six months or with fine which may extent to one thousand rupees or both. Besides this penal provision, the tenant is also provided with a right to seek restoration of the premises u/s 13 (4A) of the Act if the landlord acts in contravention thereof. Thus, if the eviction u/s 13-A is sought for ulterior purposes and is abused, the tenant is at liberty to have recourse to the above-said provisions.