Parbhu Ram and Others vs Nanak Chand and Another

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.8.1985 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala, u/s 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 (for short the Act''), dismissing the appeal of the Petitioners against the judgment dated 28.11.1985 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala City.

The Petitioners filed an application u/s 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the Respondents from the premises forming part of house No. 3127, Ward No. 2, Ambala City. Atma Ram, father of the Petitioners, was the owner of the said house. He died on 22.8.1973 and on his death the Petitioners became the owner of the same Smt Nihali, predecessor-in interest of the Respondents, was inducted as a tenant in the premises by Atma Ram. She has since died. The Respondents, being her legal heirs, relationship of landlord and tenant came into being between the parties. It was claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 5.50 per month. The ejectment of the Respondents was sought on the twin ground of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the premises by Prabhu Ram Petitioner No. 1 for his own occupation. It was alleged that he was not occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Ambala City and has not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949.

The ejectment application was opposed by the Respondents. They admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as also the rate of rent. They tendered the arrears of rent within the time provided by Section 13(1) of the Act. As such, this ground became nonexistent. The ground of personal requirement was denied. It was alleged that the Petitioners wanted to raise the rate of rent. It was also pleaded that the demised premises were residential-cum-commercial as the Respondents were making and selling clay toys besides living therein.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

Whether the Respondents are liable to be ejected on the grounds mentioned in the Petition?

Relief.

The learned Rent Controller reached at the finding that the premises in dispute are not purely residential and, therefore, the same could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement. It was also held that the Petitioners had failed to prove bona fide requirement of Petitioner No 1 for occupation of the demised premises. As such, the ejectment application was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.11.1985. On appeal the learned Appellate Authority differed with the learned Rent Controller and held that the premises in dispute is a residential building, but affirmed his finding to the effect that the Petitioners have not been able to prove bona fide requirement of the demised premises for Petitioner No. 1. As such, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 7.1.1987.

1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on the record. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended that Petitioner No. 1 retired from service on 31.8.1980 during the pendency of the ejectment application before the learned Rent Controller and he bona fide required the premises in dispute for his own occupation. It has, however, been admitted by Petitioner No. 1 that he is residing at Yamuna Nagar. He stated in cross-examination that he is living in a house belonging to his wife''s sister''s husband and he is paying Rs. 100/- per month as rent. Nanak Chand R W.l in his statement brought out that Petitioner No. 1 has constructed a house on a plot owned by him at Yamuna Nagar. He produced a certified copy of the site plan of the building from the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar as Ex. R. 1. He further stated that the area of the house is 450 square yards. The only cross-examination addressed to Nanak Chand was ''whether he had seen the title deed of the plot owned by Petitioner No. 1'', and ''whether he had gone inside the constructed house'' and whether he knew the names of the owners of the houses around the said house, but the the statement of Nanak Chand that the plot and the house constructed thereon are owned by Prabhu Ram Petitioner No. 1 was not questioned in cross-examination Ex. R. 1 is a certified copy of an official document and it clearly mentions that the plot belongs to Prabhu Ram son of Atma Ram, Petitioner No. 1. It is located in Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Ambala district.

Evidence has come on the record that besides the house in dispute, the Petitioners own two other houses at Ambala. It is, however, not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter. I am one with the learned Appellate Authority that Petitioner No. 1 has not explained why he wanted to shift from Yamuna Nagar to Ambala as he has settled at Yamuna Nagar after his retirement from service. There is no threat to him of his ejectment from the premises in his occupation at Yamuna Nagar. It is clear that the Petitioners want to get the premises in dispute vacated as these are let out at a nominal rate of rent. The petition was, therefore, not at all bona fide.

Consequently, I find no ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority that the Petitioners have failed to prove the bona fide requirement of Petitioner No. 1 with regard to the demised premises. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed but without any orders as to costs.