Lal Chand Chopra vs M/s Oswal Scientific Store

S.P. Goyal, J.—This petition u/s 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) by the landlord has been filed against the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated April 16, 1981, whereby the order of the Rent Controller was reversed and the petition for ejectment dismissed.

The ejectment has been sought on the ground of personal necessity and the exact plea raised in the petition was in the following terms:--

(1) that the petitioner bonafide requires the premises for his, own use and occupation. He is a retired man and is at present living with his sons in a house owned by his sons at Ambala Cantt. Where he is a mere licensee at the mercy of his sons. Now the petitioner is not on good terms with his sons for quite some time and it is not possible for him to live with the sons. Otherwise also he wants to lead comfortable life. In fact the building in question was built by him to spend his old age therein, comfortably. He also remains sick due to old age. The Chandigarh town is a clean and tidy with medical facility and good climate. Therefore, the petitioner wants to live in the said building and would start little business of stationery of which he has got experience so as to make a living.

It has been admitted by the landlord that he has been residing with his sons for the last 16/17 years which means that he retired some time in the year 1962 or 1963 and his age now is around 77 years. The two reasons have been mentioned in the petition for the necessity to shift to Chandigarh, namely, that the petitioner is not keeping good health and that his relations with his SCUM are not cordial. After taking into consideration his statement and the circumstances, the lower appellate Court found that there was no evidence to show that he was not keeping good health or that he was required to shift to Chandigarh for that purpose On the question of strained relations with the sons, the Appellate Authority found that no such statement had been made by the landlord, while in the witness box and instead it was deposed that he was having trouble with his daughters in law. Because of this shift in his stand the lower Appellate Court was of the opinion that the plea of strained relations was merely an excuse and not a fact. In view of these findings it was held that the landlord has failed to show any genuine need to move to Chandigarh and occupy the premises in dispute. This is a pure finding of fact based on the consideration of all the relevant evidence available on the record which would ordinarily be binding at the revisional stage But the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Nanak Chand v. Inderjit and others 1969 R.C.J. contended that the revisional power conferred on the High Court u/s 105 of the Act is wider than that conferred by section 105 of the CPC and in exercise of this jurisdiction it has to examine the legality or properiety of the order under revision which would justify examination on the finding by the Kent Control authorities about the requirements of the landlord. However, in the later decisions of the Supreme Court this view does not seem to have found favour and the trend is towards making such a finding binding on the revisional court.

In Sri. Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Others Vs. Rangaswamy Chettiar, it was held:--

A concurrent finding, based on evidence, that the landlord did not bonafide require the premises for his own use and occupation is not a finding which can be touched by the High Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 25. In such a case, merely to hold that a question is mixed question of fact and law is not sufficient to warrant the exercise of revisional power.

It may be mentioned here that the provisions of section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act under which the decision was rendered are pari materia with the provisions of the present Act. Similarly, in Bhaichand Ratanshi Vs. Laxmishanker Tribhoyan, it was observed: --

Under section 29(2) of the Act as substituted by Gujrat Act 18 of 1965, although the High Court has a wider jurisdiction than the one exercisable u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, its revisional jurisdiction could only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the decision was according to law It cannot be said that the courts below failed to apply their mind to the requirements of section 13(2) of the Act as to comparative hardship or their finding was manifestly perverse or erroneous. That being so, the High Court could not substitute its own finding for the one reached by the courts below on a reappraisal of the evidence.

In view of these later pronouncements of the Supreme Court I have no option but to hold that the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority cannot be interfered with unless it is shown to be manifestly perverse or erroneous.

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of the Appellate Authority is manifestly erroneous because of two reasons, one that the Appellate Authority failed to give due consideration to the fact that the landlord is living at Ambala in the house with his sons at sufferance and second that undue importance has been attached to the fact that the landlord has failed to specify the daughter-in-law who quarrelled with him or his wife. So far as the first ground urged is concerned, the Appellate Authority has duly noticed that the landlord is living as a licensee with his sons. The argument raised by the learned counsel, however, was that the moment it is shown that the landlord has no other accommodation in his occupation, he as of right is entitled to get his tenant ejected The argument has no basis because apart from showing that the landlord has no accommodation in his occupation, one of the other ingredient to be established is that he bona fide needs the accommodation for his own occupation. The landlord, in the present case had retired about 17 years prior to the filing of the ejectment application and has been living happily with his sons for all these years No circumstances having been brought on the record as to why he wanted to shift to Chandigarh in extreme oldage, the Appellate authority committed no error in arriving at the conclusion that the landlord had no bona fide requirement to move to Chandigarh and occupy the premises in dispute. As regards the second ground, no doubt, a passing reference has been made to the said circumstance in the judgment but the Appellate Authority has mainly relied upon the fact that the landlord had taken a different stand in the witness-box than the one pleaded. In the petition, as noticed above, it was stated that he was not pulling on well with his sons whereas in the witness box be deposed that bis and his wife''s relations with his sons and daughters-in law were not cordial It was further observed that apart from a vague averment, the landlord has not made any specific statement if any of his sons misbehaved with him So the second contention raised also has no merit. Consequently, no ground has been made out to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court and this petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.