Lakshmi Chand vs Ram Bhagat

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

The landlord, Lakshmi Chand, sought the ejectment of his tenant Ram Bhagat from the demised premises consisting of the upper floor of the shop No 24, M. C Plot No. 1327, Sector 13, Goushala Mandi, Panipat. The premises were let out to the tenant in the year 1978-79, but the rent note was executed on June 9, 1980. Rs. 27 /-per month was the rent agreed to be paid. The ejectment application was filed on August 14, 1981 for the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises inter alia on the ground that the landlord required the same for the bona fide residence of his son Ramesh Chander who was married and was occupying no other premises for his residence in the urban area concerned, nor had vacated any without any sufficient cause after the coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. According to the landlord his wife, his married son and his wife, two other sons who were student at that time and an unmarried daughter were living with him. Besides, his one married daughter usually visited to see the parents As such, the accommodation in his possession was insufficient for his requirement. In the written statement, the tenant denied the said allegations. He pleaded that about one and a half years, prior to the eviction application, the landlord tried to take forcible possession of the demised premises. At that time, at the intervention of the police and the respectable, the rate of rent was enhanced from Rs. 250/- to 275/- per month. It was in these circumstances that the rent note, Exhibit A.1, was executed. It was denied that there was bona fide requirement of the landlord for his married son. The learned Rent Controller, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that it was manifest that that the Petitioner had successfully established that there was personal bona fide necessity regarding the demised premises. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, dismissed the ejectment application. According to the Appellate Authority, the rent note was executed in June, 1980, whereas the ejectment application was filed in August, 1981. Therefore, the need of the landlord could not change unless there were some compelling circumstances.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the approach of the Appellate Authority was wholly wrong, illegal and misconcieved whereas the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord required the premises bana fide for the occupation of his married son. It was further contended that the non-appearance of the son in the witness-box was of no consequence once it was proved that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Narinder Singh v. Kishore Chand 1985 (2) Rent Control Journal 39.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the landlord Petitioner.

The ejectment application was filed u/s 13(?)(a)(ii) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, which provides that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, in the case of a residential building, if he requires it for use as an office or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as a lawyer, qualified architect or chartered accountant or as a "registered practitioner" within the meaning of that expression used in the Punjab Medical Registration Act, 1916, the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, or the Punjab Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, or for the residence of his son who is married ; provided that such son is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office, consulting room or residence, as the case may be and has not vacated it without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Thus, under the said provision, a landlord is entitled to eject his tenant if he requires the demised premises for the residence of his married son provided the said son is not occupying any other building in the urban area concerned for his residence, nor has vacated any without any sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. All these ingredients are fulfilled in the present case. It is in evidence that earlier, the landlord was himself residing in the demised premises. Since they were insufficient to accommodate his family, he constructed another house and shifted there. Now he required the demised premises for the separate residence of his married son. Admittedly, his married son is not occupying another building in the urban area concerned. At present, he is residing with his parents. Nor he has vacated any other building which he ever occupied in the concerned urban area.

6 As a matter of fact, the rent note, Exhibit A.l, was executed on June 9, 1980. It was fer a period of 11 months. The tenant was already in occupation of the premises, The rent note was executed with the understanding that after the expiry of 11 months, the tenant will vacate the same because meanwhile the marriage of the landlord''s son was to take place. In any case, under the rent law, the landlord is entitled to eject the tenant if he required the demised premises for the occupation of his married son. The tenant cannot be permitted to agitate that the landlord''s married son should continue to live with his parents where he was residing prior to his marriage. That would defeat the very purpose of the law, whereunder the landlord is entitled to the separate residence for his married son, unless the son himself was occupying any other building in the urban area concerned or had vacated it without any sufficient cause. As observed earlier, there is no such allegation, nor is there any such evidence. The approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived whereas the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord did require the demised premises for the occupation of his married son.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller ejecting the tenant from the demised premises is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited within one month today with the Rent Controller, along with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, the premises would be vacated and the vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlord and the future rent will be paid regularly monthly, in advance, by the tenth of every month to the landlord.