Mangal Singh vs The Union of India

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

Mangal Singh, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant, Union of India from H. No 43. Sector 5, Chandigarh constructed on a 4 Kanal Plot. The Union of India was inducted as a tenant in March, 1974, @ Rs 800/- per month. The premises were let out for the purpose of office as well as for residence. The ejectment application was filed on 28th March, 1984, on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that he was 75 years old was not keeping good health, and, therefore, wanted to settle at Chandigarh to have treat-ment from the P G I , and, thus, wanted to shift from his village to this place ; that the tenant was requested to vacate the premises but the same was not acceeded to ; that meanwhile he was residing with his friend in Sector 2 B, Chandigarh, and that he was not in the occupation of any other residential building in the urban area of Chandigarh nor had he vacated any such premises in that urban area after the enforcement of the Rent Restriction Act, without any sufficient cause. In the Written Statement, the tenant denied the allegations that the premises were required by the landlord for his personal use. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation bonafide, and consequently, eviction was ordered. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority has reversed the said finding and came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the landlord is only to the stage of wish and his desire, and no element of need is proved therein. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside

During the pendency of this petition, the landlord Petitioner moved civil miscellaneous No. 4737 CII/1985 for producing additional evidence consistent of(i) medical certificate issued by Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta pertaining to prostrate glands operation performed by him on the landlord on 20th September. 1984, and (ii) discharge and follow-up card of the Arya Hospital, Manimajra, bearing Regn. No. 7139, dated 25th September, 1984

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller had rightly come to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. According to the learned Counsel, the Appellate Authority has misread the statement of Mangal Singh, landlord (AW-1). It was argued that the landlord while appearing in the witness box had brought the medical certificates with him but since no question was put to him in cross-examination, the same were not produced. Not only that, Rup Chand, Administrative Officer, appearing as RW-1 on behalf of the Union of India, nowhere stated that the landlord did not require the premises for his bonafide use ; rather, he admitted in cross examination that the landlord had been requesting them since 21st December, 1981, to vacate the premises as he required the same for his own use and occupation. He further admitted that since March, 1983, their office had already acquired land and was going to construct the building very soon and would shift as soon as the building was completed. He also admitted that it was correct that the rate of rent of the premises in dispute was Rs. 1800/- per month from the very inception of the tenancy and the lanlord never requested for its increase. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, from the evidence on record, it was amply proved that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on record, I find that the whale approach of the learned Appellate Authority was wrong, illegal, and misconoieved. The landlord, Mangal Singh, appearing as AW-1, categorically stated that he suffered from various ailments for the last five years and he had brought the record of his treatment from time to time. No question was put to him in cross-examination in this respect. Therefore, it has been wrongly observed by the Appellate Authority that no evidence was led by the landlord to prove his illness. Not only that, Mangal Singh stated that he was operated upon for his eyes, and lastly about three or four months ago he bad been operated in the Arya Hospital, Manimajra by the doctors of the Chandigarh Medical Centre, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The last operation related to his urinary trouble, as stated by his ton Joginder Pal Singh AW-2. The Appellate Authority was wrong in observing that "It is also there in the statement of AW Mangal Singh that he got himself operated upon for his eyes but it is there in the statment of Joginder Pal Singh AW. his son, that his father was operated upon for some urine trouble about three months back. This shows a major discrepancy in the statements of the two witnesses about the nature of the illness of the landlord." Thus, from the evidence or record, it is amply proved that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The very fact that be never asked for any increase of rent since 1974 to 1984 further proves he wanted to shift to his own house for better medical treatment Moreover, it is in the statement of Rup Chand, Administrative Officer (RW-1) that they had already acquired the land for constructing the office building. This statement was made by him on 4th February, 1985. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds, the impugned order is get aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment 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 with the Rent Controller within one month and the future rent will be paid in advance by the 10th of each succeeding month.