Prof. K.K. Sud vs Lt. Col. Iesh Rikhi

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal

The demised premises are a residential house, No. 76, Sector 11 A Chandigarh, Professor K K. Sood, is the tenant in the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs 715/- The house, in question, is owned by the landlord Lt Col Iesh Rikhy and his brother. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the allegations that he was an Army Officer posted in the field area and was serving in special conditions as per the certificate obtained by him from the Army authorities. He required the demised premises for his wife and children as well as for his parents who were living at Jammu and wanted to shift to Chandigarh in the demised premises The allegations of subletting thereof were also made. The tenant controverted the said allegation and pleaded that the petition was filed just to increase the rate of rent and that the landlord did not require the premises, nor was he serving in any special conditions. The relation ship of landlord and tenant between the parties was also denied. The learned Rent Controller found that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties However, on the question of bona fids requirement, the Rent Controller found that the said ground was not available to the landlord since on two previous occasions he hadincreased the rate of rent of the premises, in question Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord for the present premises could not be looked with any suspicion. It was further found that the landlord was serving in special conditions and, thus, he was entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant if he wanted the premises for the use and occupation of his family which he wanted to shift to the premises, in dispute An objection was also raised before the Appellate Authority that the landlord had failed to include the barsati portion of the premises, while seeking the eviction of the tenant therefrom, in the eviction petition. According to the tenant, the landlord had only claimed his ejectment from the ground floor of the premises However, the Appellate Authority found that the eviction application must be taken for the entire promises which happened to be in possession of the tenant. In view of these findings the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the sane, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the landlord only sought the ejectment of the tenant from the ground floor whereas the eviction order has been passsed against him qua the ground floor as well as the barsati on the first floor. Thus, argued the Learned Counsel, since the landlord failed to include the whole premises which were rented out, he was not entitled to split the tenancy. In support of the contention, reliance was placed en Panna Lal v. Dev Jit (1976)78 P. L. R. 23 S. N.: 1976 R. C. J. 817. and Kanwar Behari Vs. Smt. Vindhya Devi, .

There is no force in this contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. Of course, in the ejectment application, the tenant''s eviction was sought from the ground floor which was rented out to him initially. However, it has been found as a fact that the tenant is in occupation of the ground floor as well as the barsati on the first floor. Thus, the entire building is in occupation of the tenant. The landlord has sought his ejectment from the entire building, as found by the Appellate Authority, Thus, the question of his spliting up the tenancy as such did not arise and the above-said decisions of this Court have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the certificate obtained from the military authorities, Exhibit P-l, was not duly proved However, no such objection was taken either before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority; rather the objection taken was the said certificate was obtained through fraud or misappropriation, which plea was found to be false by both the authorities below. Explanation (1) to Section 13(3)(i-a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, provides inter alia that the certificate of the prescribed authority shall be conclusive evidence that the landlord is serving under special conditions. Besides, at the time of recording evidence, no objection was raised thereto As observed earlier, the only objection raised thereto was that it was obained by fraud or misrepresentation, which was negatived, tived.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide as his children who were school going were admitted to the school at Jammu whereas his parents were living at Delhi in their own house. Thus, the requirement of the landlord could not be held to be bonafide. I have gone through the evidence on the record. I do not find that the finding of the Appellate Authority suffers in any way as to be interfered within the revisional jurisdiction. It has been stated by the landlord in the eviction petition that he requires the premises for the use and occupation of his family as well as his parents. While appearing in the witness box, he categorically stated that he wanted the premises for the use and occupation of his family and his parents; particularly for his ailing mother for whom better medical facilities were available at Chandigarh than at Delhi Since the landlord is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India and is serving under special conditions as contemplated u/s 13(3)(a-i) of the Act, his requirement to settle his family at Chandigarh was most bonafide. It may be that at the time when the statement was made by the landlord on December 9, 1981, his children were admitted to the school at Jammu, but now, if the landlord wants to settle at Chandigarh and provide them education here in the schools as well as in the colleges, there is nothing wrong in it and it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the tenant that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide. There is no circumstance or evidence on the record to doubt the bonafide need of the demised premises by the landlord.

In this view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed two months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for two months are deposited with the Rent Controller within a month besides filing an undertaking, in writing, that he will vacate the premises after the expiry of two months and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the landlord.