K.K. Whig vs Gurbachan Singh and Another

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This is landlord''s revision petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.

The landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant from the first floor of house No. 3282 of Sector 21-D., Chandigarh, consisting of two bed rooms one drawing and dining, two bath rooms, one kitchen etc. on the ground that he bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation as he was to ret re on November 30, 1984. The ejectment application was filed on June 11, 1984 The landlord was in occupation of the ground floor consisting of three bed rooms, drawing and dining Initially, ground floor was let out in the year 1973. However, later on the tenant was allowed to occupy the first floor in the year 1977. In view of his retirement, the landlord pleaded that he required the whole house for his occupation in view of the members living with him. In the written statement, the tenants pleaded that earlier, the rent of the premises was Rs. 425/- per month. Thereafter, he increased it to Rs. 500/- and then to Rs. 600/- per month. According to the tenants, the landlord wants to increase the rent from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 800/-per month; hence he filed the ejectement application The need of the landlord was not bone fide, inder Singh who is the wife''s uncle of the landlord never stayed with them; nor Surinder Singh who is the wife''s cousin. The accommodation with him was sufficient to meet his requirement. The learned Rent Controller held that the persons dependant upon the landlord for the purpose of accommodation are his wife, his wife''s uncle and the brother of his wife. It was ultimately held that the accommodation with the landlord was insufficient and that he required one room for accommodating guests and one room for his wife for her meditation and, therefore, his need was bona fide. The plea of the tenant that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent was negative. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on January 18, 1985. In appeal, the learned appellate authority took the view that Inder Singh, uncle of the landlord''s wife and Surinder Singh cousin of landlord''s wife were not dependent on the landlord. Moreover, they did not come into the witness-box to state that they were residing with the landlord and. therefore, it could not be held, that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. According to the appellate authority, the plea of the tenant that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent from Rs. 600/ to Rs. 800/ per month seemed to be plausible in view of these findings, tie eviction order was set aside.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the appellate authority was wrong and illegal. The learned Rent Controller after apprising the entire oral evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was hot a fide and the said Inder Singh and Surinder Singh were the persons dependent upon him for the purpose of accommodation. The said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Smt. Eaibir Maur v. M/s. Chokesiri & Co. 1998 (2)R C.J. 316 and Jagdish Kumar v. Niranjan Lal 1980 (1) R. L. R. 341 a Division Bench judgment of this Court, to contend that the expression ''his own occupation", cannot be given a meaning so as to restrict its application to the occupation by the landlord and his dependents only, nor (an it be given such a liberal meaning so as to include the seed of those family members also who are living with him temporarily )t was also pointed out that the findings of the appellate authority were contradictory.

On the ether hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said Surinder Singh and Inder Singh could not be said to be the dependents and family member and, therefore, the view taken by the appellate authority could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. It was also pointed out that the accommodation with the landlord was sufficient to meet his requirement.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, 1 find that the learned Kent Controller has given very cogent reasons to conclude that the requirement of the landlord was most bona fide The findings were based on the appreciation of the oral evidence and the same have been upset in appeal arbitrarily by the appellate authority. No cogent reasons have been given by the appellate authority to reverse the said findings of the Rent Controller. As was held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Balbir Kaur''s case (supra), the appellate Court, if it seeks to reverse those findings of fact, must give cogent reasons to demonstrate how the trial Court fell into an obvious error In this case, the findings of toe appellate authority are self-contradictory. On the hand, it was held that inder Singh and Surinder Singh are living with the landlord whereas on the ether hand, it has been found that it is admitted position on the record that Inder Singh is listed as voter in the demised premises, hut the said voters'' list has not been produced by the landlord for the reasons best known to him. If it is the admitted position, then the question of producing the voters'' list did not arise. As a matter of fact, the whole thrust of the appellate authority is that since Inder Singh and Surinder Singh were not dependents en the landlord, any accommodation for them was not relevant. This approach of the appellate authority was wholly wrong and erroneous in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Kumar''s case (supra), wherein it was held that the expression, '' his own occupation", would include the use of the premises by the landlord himself and the member is of his family who by reason of the habits and ideas of living and the social and religious custom of the community to which the landlord belongs are used to living as one unit and as part and parcel of the family. Since both of them are living with the landlord since long, the landlord was entitled to seek accommodation for them as well.

Apart from the above, section I3-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amend, was made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh in November. 1986, whereas the landlord retired on November 30, 1984. Since already the Pent Controller bad passed the eviction order or. November 18, 1985, the landlord could not avail the benefit of the said provisions of Section 13A of the said Act Since the landlord-petitioner has retired from service he is entitled to live comfortably and to occupy his whole house as such. There was nr thing on the record to doubt the bona fides of the landlord in this behalf.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds. The order of appellate authority is set aside and that of the Pent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant is restored with costs. However, the tenants ere allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, along with a undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period of three months vacant possession shall be banded over to the landlord, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month from the date of this order.