Laxman Dass Aggarwal vs A.K. Bahal

J.V. Gupta, J

This is landlord''s revision petition where ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The Petitioner filed two ejectment applications almost simultaneously against his two tenants. The one out of which this revision petition has arisen, relates to house No 13 B Old Tribune Coleny, Ambala Cantt. Whereas the other related to house No. 16B, Old Tribune Colony, Ambala Cantt. Both the homes are adjacent to each other. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The ejectment application relating to house No. 16-B, referred to above, was allowed and the eviction order was maintained even up to this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1565 of 1980 (Dinesh Kumar v. Laxman Dass Aggarwal), decided on 2nd February, 1982. The other ejectment application remained pending It was decided by the Rent Controller vide order dated 18th May, 1983 The main ground for rejecting the application by the Rent Controller was that since the ejectment order had already been passed in favour of the landlord with respect to house No. 16-B, his requirement, if any, was fulfilled and, therefore, the same was liable to be rejected. 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, be has filed this revision petition in this Court.

During the pendency of the revision petition, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3224-CII of 1985, was filed to bring on record the subsequent events to be taken into consideration at the time of the hearing of the revision petition. It was stated therein that during the pendency of the revision petition, the tenant had built a house in the name of his wife Mrs. Geeta Behl. The said house was built at plot No. 16, Janak Puri, Ambala Cantt. Even the Greh Parvesh Ceremony in connection with the said house took place on 22nd October, 1985. In the reply filed on behalf of the tenant, it has been stated that he has not constructed any house as alleged by the landlord. The said plot was purchased by his wife Mrs. Geeta Behl in the year 1980 and by sanction of loan by her employer, she raised incomplete house thereon which is devoid of water supply sanitation and that there is no provision for roads leading to the said plot. The said incomplete house is not sufficient and fit for the occupation of the tenant or his wife. Nothing is stated as regards the Greh Parvesh (sic)eremony in regard to the said house, in testimony whereof a printed invitation card has been filed in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the landlord retired from Government service on 2nd February, 1980, as Under Secretary to Government, Haryana. Thereafter, be wanted to occupy his own house at Ambala Cantt. The accommodation in the other house, i.e. House No. 16-B, which has been vacated by the other tenant was not sufficient to meet his requirements According to the learned Counsel, the approach of the authorities below in this behalf is wrong, illegal and misconceived. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no element of need so far as the requirement, of the landlord was concerned and, therefore, the view taken by the authorities below in this regard could not be interfered with in revision by this Court.

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 Petitioner.

Both the ejectment applications were filed by the Petitioner almost simultaneously as he wanted both the houses to be vacated in order to meet his requirement House No. 16-B was vacated in May, 1982, but since it was insufficient to meet his requirement, he continued to live at Chandigarh in Government accommodation by paying penal rent. Home No. 16-B, has only two rooms and store accommodation. The family of the Petitioner consists of three sons and four daughters and his wife. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner was entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises as he required the same for his own use and occupation after his retirement from Government service.

Apart from the above, the wife of the tenant has constructed a house in the urban area concerned That itself provides an independent ground of eviction as contemplated u/s 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 19(sic)3. It has been admitted by the tenant in reply to the civil miscellaneous application that his Wife has constructed a house in the urban area concerned. That being so, the tenant is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on that ground also Besides, it is a matter of common knowledge that the rent legislation is meant to protect the interests of a bona fide tenant

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the authorities below are set aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenant However, he is allowed two months'' time to vacate the premises ; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for two months, are deposited with the Rent Controller within fifteen days alongwith the undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, he shall vacate the demised premises and hand over their vacant possession to the landlord.