Om Parkash and Another vs Sarup Singh

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—Om Prakash and Smt. Vidya Wati filed an application for ejectment of Sarup Singh tenant from a house on the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Controller ordered the ejectment, but on appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment petition. The landlords have come to this Court in revision. The ground mentioned in the ejectment petition was as follows:-

2 (ii). That the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his own occupation and it is impossible to accommodate his family consisting of 6 person in the house in his possession which is on rent with the petitioner including one northern room in the house in dispute.

A reading of the above clearly shows that the landlords admitted that either both of them, or at least one of them, was in occupation of a rented house besides occupying one room on the northern side in the house in dispute. At the time of evidence, the statement of Om Parkash, one of the landlords as P.W. 1, was as follows:-

I have no other house in the urban area of Jullundur excepting the house in dispute. I have not vacated any house in the urban area of Jullundur. I live in a store belonging to my brother as licensee. The store cannot accommodate my family It does not accommodate four cots. My family consists of six persons; my wife, two sons and two daughters. Sons and daughters go to school. There is no room for my children to study. There is no kitchen no bath room, I want the premises in dispute for my personal accommodation......

A reading of the aforesaid statement shows that there is no mention about the tenanted house nor of northern room in the house in dispute, but only of a store belonging to his brother which was in his occupation as a licensee. Due to this variance between the pleadings and proof, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and after setting aside the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition. On a reading of the pleadings as also the statement of Om Parkash landlord, it is clear that no fault can be found with the decision of the Court below.

Faced with this situation, the counsel for the landlords has urged before me that although the house belongs to both the petitioners, in fact the petition was filed for personal use and occupation on behalf of Om Parkash only, who retired from railway service in the year 1974 and required the premises for his personal use. According to the pleadings contained in para 2(ii) quoted above, he was in possession of a house as a tenant besides the northern room in the house in dispute, but the learned counsel states that he meant the same store which belongs to his brother and which he was in possession as a licensee. No such inference can be drawn on the face of the pleadings and evidence on record of this case and it appears that the case was not properly conducted on behalf of the landlords. However, it will be open to the landlords to file a fresh petition for ejectment of the tenant after precisely stating the pleadings as observed by the Appellate Court and then to lead evidence in support thereof. The decision of this case will not stand in any way in the filing of fresh ejectment petition. This order is proposed in view Onkar Nath Vs. Ved Vyas,

For the reasons recorded above, this revision is dismissed but without any order as to costs.