Malwinder Singh vs S.L. Maini

G.R. Majithia, J.—The tenant has come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority affirming on appeal that of the Rent Controller whereby his eviction was ordered from the demised premises.

The facts :-

Shri S. L. Maini, respondent/landlord (hereinafter the landlord) is owner of House No. 1128, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh; that he was Chief Engineer in the Public Health Department, Punjab, with headquarters at Patiala ; that he was to retire from Government service on April 30, 1987 ; that ground-floor of House No. 1128, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh (hereinafter the demised premises) was rented out to the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter the tenant) on January 26, 1983 for a period of eleven months at a monthly rent of Rs. 1100/- excluding water and electricity charges ; that agreement of lease was executed by the tenant on January 26, 1983; that the tenant was serving as Executive Engineer in the Public Health" Department, where the landlord was serving as a Chief Engineer ; that the landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the accommodation in his possession on the first floor was" insufficient for him ; that the same was under the tenancy of Shri O. P. Manocha, who vacated it at the asking of the landlord since he had to take up residence there ; that the landlord is not in possession/occupation of any other residential accommodation either at Chandigarh or at any other place in Punjab and had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act, for brevity); that the landlord suffered from heart ailment and had undergone open heart surgery in U.S.A. on May 31, 1988 and had been advised not to climb the stairs; that his wife was also a heart patient; that his son Niraj Maini, who was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, P.W.D. Irrigation, at Sangrur had been transferred to Rajpura in July, 1988 and now he has been transferred to Chandigarh ; that the wife and child of Niraj Maini had shifted to Chandigarh and had taken up the residence with the landlord; that his other son, namely, Vipin Maini, who was residing at Patiala and set up business there had to leave that place and had taken residence at Chandigarh because of spurt in terrorists activities since it was not safe to live at Patiala.

The tenant joined issue with the landlord regarding his personal necessity. He pleaded that the landlord had constructed a house at Patiala and was living in House No. 140, Civil Lines, Passi Road, Patiala and after his retirement the first floor of the house in dispute was rented out to one Bahadur and that the landlord has huge Government accommodation at Patiala.

The only issue arising for determination was whether the landlord required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller found that the landlord had retired from Government service ; that the landlord and his wife are heart patients and the landlord had undergone bye-pass surgery of the heart in United States of America in July, 1988 ; the first floor of the house is in possession of the landlord ; that Niraj Maini, son of the landlord, although posted at Rajpura, was residing with the landlord. The tenant''s version that the first floor was repeatedly rented out by the landlord was found to be false. The Rent Controller held that the landlord needed the demised premises for his own use and occupation and allowed the claim of the landlord.

On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority upheld the conclusions arrived at by the Rent Controller. It rejected the plea of the tenant that the landlord''s son Neeraj Maini had gone to Australia to settle there permanently and held that he had gone to Australia for the treatment of his wife ; that he returned to India and joined the Department on October 3, 1991 and along with his wife and son was residing with the landlord. It also held that the landlord had undergone open heart surgery in the United States of America and his wife was also suffering from heart ailment and to climb . the stairs would result in strain to the landlord and his wife. Climbing the stairs by a person who has undergone bye-pass heart surgery can prove injurious. It negatived the tenant''s plea that the landlord had a house at Patiala, although it held that the landlord had a plot at Patiala. But holding of a plot will not debar the landlord from claiming eviction of the tenant from the demised premises It held that the landlord had not constructed any residential house at Patiala It also rejected the tenant''s plea, that the first floor was being leased out by the landlord occasionally and, on analysing the evidence, it held thus :-

"To my mind, there cannot be a better case of personal requirement of the landlord than the one presently in hand."

The finding that the landlord needs the demised premises for his own use and occupation is essentially a finding of fact not open to exception in revision.

Before me, learned counsel for the tenant, submitted that the landlord has failed to prove the element of need to occupy the demised premises. He further submitted that the landlord''s version that after the by-pass heart surgery, he cannot climb the stairs is not accepted by the medical experts. He could not support his assertion by any precedent or authority. The submission of the learned counsel is devoid of any merit. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that House No. 1128. Sector 15-B, Chandigarh is constructed on a 12-Marla plot. In Chandigarh, according to the buildings bye-laws the landlord cannot construct beyond the prescribed limit It was net brought to my notice as to how much accommodation the landlord has in his possession on the first floor. On the ground floor there are three bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining, two toilets and a kitchen The landlord is a person of respectability having retired as Chief Engineer Public Health, in 1987. Before his retirement, he was residing in a palatial Government accommodation. His status and stature suggest that he has been accustomed to living comfortably. His two married sons with their families are residing with him. In the evenings of his life, the landlord wants to live peacefully in the company of his sons grandsons and daughters-in-law for security reasons and also for securing their services as and when needed. Presence of the grand children may give him the much needed love and affection for which the old people have-craving. The married sons of the landlord are not living with their father as a matter of choice but as a matter of necessity. The youngest son of the landlord had set up his business at Patiala. He had to wind up his business there and take up residence with his father at Chandigarh because of the spurt in terrorists activities in Patiala. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the people of the minority community are living in awe and constant fear in that district. I do not want to say in this judgment beyond this The facts are too notorious and this Court cannot help taking judicial notice of those. This place is comparatively safer as pleaded before me by the counsel for the landlord and he is correct in his submission The landlord may be finding it inconvenient, rather too. difficult to accept his one time subordinate officer to live in the same house in which, lie has taken up residence. It appears that the landlord rented out the demised premises when he was in service and posted at Patiala to his one time subordinate under the hope that the latter will vacate it when the former needs it. The tenant successfully kept the landlord at bay for more than four years and succeeded in thwarting his lawful attempt to regain possession of his house by taking up all sorts of pleas---false or imaginary. On the proved facts, the only irresistible conclusion is that the landlord bona fide requires the demised premises.

The instant case will furnish as a warning to the landlords who trust their subordinates and induct them as tenants in their residential houses with the hope that they will vacate those when the formers need them. There may or may not be written assurance by the tenant in this behalf. Even if there is any, it is not sustainable at law ; but the landlords will warn themselves that the hope which was generated when the premises were leased out was illusory only.

For the reasons stated above; the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee is assessed at Rs. 3,000/-. However, the tenant is allowed two months'' time to vacate the demised premises provided (i) he furnishes an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one week from today to the effect that he will deliver vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord on or before January 10, 1992, and (ii) he will pay/deposit rent up-to-date with the Rent Controller within one week from the date of this judgment.