Mehar Chand Saharan vs Ravinder Kumar

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenants petition against whom eviction order hag been passed by both the authorities below.

The landlord Ravinder Kumar sought the ejectment of his tenant Mehar Chand Saharan from the premises in dispute which consists of two rooms, one kitchen, common bath room, common latrine, common courtyard of property unit No. B. II 542, Arya Mohalla, Ludhiana, on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from July, 1979, and that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation as the present accommodation in his occupation was insufficient. His family consists of his wife and children. He was married in the year 1975. At present he was occupying one room in the building adjacent to the building in dispute which is owned by five brothers. The site plan of the said house was also filed along with the ejectment application. The application was filed on December 18, 1979. In the written statement, the plea taken by the tenant was that he was not in arrieas of rent. Rather he had paid advance rent upto 1982, that is from August, 1979 to March, 1982. As regards the personal requirement of the landlord, it was pleaded that he does not require the premises at all. His need is mala fide and with ulterior motive. It was now where pleaded that the present accomodation in his occupation was not sufficient to meet his requirement. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant was in arrears from August, 1979, which rent was neither paid or tendered on the first date of hearing. The story put up by the tenant that he had paid advance rent upto March, 1982, was negatived. On the question of personal necessity, it was found that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide as the present accommodation in his occupation was insufficient. The plea of the tenant that the other tenants occupying the portion of the building in dispute had vacated and were re let by the landlord was negatived with the observation that the previous premises vacated and re-let were before the marriage of the landlord and at that time, it appeared that the premises were not required. It was after the marriage and the birth of the children that necessity tor more accommodation had arisen. As a result of these findings, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of nonpayment of arrears of rent It came to the conclusion that the tenant had paid advance rent from August, 1978 to March 1982. Thus, it was held that the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent was not proved. However, on the question of bona fide requirement, the finding of the Rent Controller was upheld Consequently the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the landlord has been found to be false and untruthful as regards the arrears of rent. According to the Learned Counsel, once he is found to be false and had not come to the Court with clean hands he was not entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant on any other ground. He also challenged the finding of the authorities below on the question of personal requirement It was contended that even the sister of the landlord who appeared as R. W. 4 Santosh Kumari had stated that the need of her brother landlord was not bona fide. According to the Learned Counsel, she being the co-sharer of the property in dispute, her statement could not be ignored In any case, argued the Learned Counsel that the landlord had re-let the premises when it had fallen vacant in the year 1973 and then again in 1978 and that being so he had failed to prove the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) to show that he has not vacated any other building in the urban area concerned without sufficient cause.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I am of the considered view that the landlord has proved on the record his bona fide requirement for his own use and occupation of the demised premises. The present accommodation in his occupation consists of one room only. This fact was clearly stated in the ejectment application and was never denied. Even the site plan of the premises was filed along with the ejectment application. The landlord was married in the year 1975 whereas the present application for ejectment was filed in the year 1979 when he had got two children. If prior to that date he had re let the premises to certain tenants that did not disentitle him to claim ejectment of his tenant on the ground of his personal bona fide requirement in the year 1979. From the facts and the circumstances of the case, it is amply proved that there was sufficient ground for letting out the premises earlier to certain other tenants. Moreover, on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently held by both the authorities below that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide and it being a finding of fact could not be interferred with in this petition

The finding on the question of non-payment of rent was given in favour of the landlord by the Rent Controller. However, that finding was upset in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The Learned Counsel for the landlord challenged the correctness of that Binding of the Appellate Authority in this petition. Much can be said on both sides on this point of non payment of arrears of rent. However, in view of the finding given on the question of personal necessity the question of non payment of rent is left open.

Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent if any, up-to-date and advance rent for three months is deposited within one month with the rent Controller along with the undertaking in writing that after the expiry of three months'' period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord.