Krishan Lal and Others vs Ishar Singh

Ashok Bhan, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the landlords whose petition for ejectment against tenant-respondent stands dismissed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority.

Krishan Lal, Ram Kishan and Johnston Lal petitioner-landlords (hereinafter referred to as the ''landlords''), filed an ejectment application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), against Ishar Singh, respondent-tenant (hereinafter referred to as ''the tenant'') for ejectment from the premises in dispute situated in Hoshiarpur on the ground that the tenant has not paid the rent of the premises in, dispute from 1.1.1984 to 31.10.1984 and that the landlords bonafide required the premises in dispute for their own use and occupation.

The tenant resisted the ejectment application. Arrears of rent were tendered alongwith interest and costs assessed by the Court. Written statement was filed in which it was admitted that he was occupying the premises in dispute as a tenant, but denied that the demised premises were required by the landlords for their bonafide use and occupation.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

Whether the applicants require the demised promises for their own personal bonafide use? OPA

Whether the tender of arrears etc. made by the respondent is invalid? OPA

Relief.

The Rent Controller decided issue No.1 against the landlord on the ground that the landlords have not specifically pleaded that they were not occupying any. other house in the urban area of Hoshiarpur and that they had not vacated any house in the urban area of Hoshiarpur without sufficient cause after coming into force of the Act. The landlords filed an application for amendment of the pleadings which was allowed. In the amended pleadings it was pleaded that they were not occupying any other residential house in the urban area of Hoshiarpur and that they had not vacated any such house without sufficient cause after coming into force of the Act.

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the landlords on the ground that they were occupying a house in village Naru Nangal which was sufficient for their accommodation. It was further held by the Appellate Authority that the landlords have not given reasons as to why they wanted to shift from their village to Hoshiarpur and why and for what specific purpose they required the premises in dispute for their own use and occupation.

Aggrieved by the orders of the authorities below, the landlords have filed the present revision petition in this Court. In the revision petition the ground taken is that the Appellate Authority has wrongly dismissed the appeal as two sons of Kirshan Lal landlord were living with him at village Naru Nangal and one of them was married and, therefore, the accommodation in their occupation at village Naru Nangal was insufficient. It was also pleaded that village Naru Nangal does not fall in any urban area and that the house in village Naru Nangal cannot be taken into consideration while determining the personal need of the landlords to occupy the premises situated at Hoshiarpur. During the pendency of the revision petition the landlords moved Civil Misc. No. 2395 CII of 1991 in order to bring on record the subsequent events. In the affidavit filed by Kirshan Lal, one of the landlords, it has been stated that during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court in the year 1987, the only residential house belonging to the landlords, in village Naru Nangal had fallen due to natural causes. It was further averred that he was living at present as a tenant with one Chint Ram son of Baru Ram and was paying a sum of Rs. 50/- per month as rent for one room. It was also averred in the affidavit that the landlord had become roofless and that he had no other living accommodation in his possession.

Notice of this application was given to the learned counsel for the respondent The application was directed to be heard with the main case. No reply has been filed on behalf of the tenant to the said application. Thus, the, averments made in the affidavit of Krishan Lal stand uncontroverted. His application for leading additional evidence is accordingly accepted.

Learned counsel for the landlords argued that since during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court, the only house owned by them at village Naru Nangal had fallen, and, therefore, the landlords were entitled to seek the ejectment of their tenant. It was also argued on behalf of the landlords that the house of village Naru Nangal is not within the municipal limits of urban area concerned. The case of the landlords is that the approach of the Appellate Authority was wrong and improper. In support of this submission he relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in Civil Revision No. 157 of 1989, Krishan Lal and others v. Banta Ram decided on March 12,1991, in which Banta Ram was also a tenant in the other part of the same building. In that revision petition the plea of the petitioner-landlords was that they required the premises for their personal need as their house at village Naru Nangal had fallen down, was accepted. Their application for leading additional evidence was also accepted and taken into consideration while disposing of the petition. In the said revision petition which relates to the part of the same building, after considering the averments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge concluded as under :-

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in this petition. The whole approach of the authorities below was wrong and improper. The mere fact that the landlord was residing in his village itself was not sufficient to doubt his bona fide to occupy the demised promises situated at Hoshiarpur. Moreover, during the pendency of this petition, even the said house in village Naru Nangal has also fallen and the landlord Krishan Lal was living in tenanted premises. Thus, the requirement of the landlord to occupy his own promises in bona fide. Consequently, this petition succeeds. The impugned order are set aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenant."

Taking the same view in the present case, I accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the authorities below. The ejectment petition succeeds. The tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises, provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month, with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period, the vacant possession will be handed over to the landlords. No costs.