Raj Kumar and Others vs Mohinder Pal Gupta and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1614, 1615 and 3624 of 1986, as the question involved is common in all the cases.

Sita Wati alias Sita Devi, widow, and Chuni Lal son of Mohan Lal were the owners previously of the building, in dispute, which consists of the shops and the residential portion. All the tenants were inducted by them as such. Avtar Singh and Vijay Kumar were the tenants on the two shops on the ground floor of the building separately, while Mohinder Pal Gupta was the tenant on the shop on the ground floor as well as on the first floor of the building which he was occupying for his residence. Petitioners Raj Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Sudhir Pal Sons of Sher Chand and their mother Ram Devi, purchased the whole building vide sale deeds dated January 27, 1981 and February 9, 1981 Thus the relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between the parties from the date of the said sales. The Petitioners filed three separate ejectment applications dated November 12, 1981 seeking their ejectment inter alia on the ground that the whole building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. This was a common ground in all the three ejectment applications. In addition, in case of Avtar Singh, tenant, it was further pleaded that the shop, was lying locked for eight months and was thus not being used by him. Therefore, he had failed to occupy the same without any reasonable cause for a period of more than four mouths. In the case of Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, the additional ground taken for eviction was that the landlords bona fide required the premises for their use and occupation. They were residing in the house which was insufficient for their requirement and belonged to the father of Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and the husband of Petitioner No. 4. They had purchased the property, in dispute, with the object of living therein comfortably separate from him. It was further asserted that the marriage of Raj Kumar, Petitioner, was to take place. The house in their occupation had one store and four rooms one of which was a baithak. The father had three sons and three daughters along with his wife Ram Devi, in the written statement filed on behalf of the tenants, the allegations made in the ejectment applications were denied. Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, further pleaded that the plea that the landlords wanted the premises for their personal necessity was an after thought and a fabricated story. The accommodation available with them was sufficient for their residence. The learned Rent Controller found in all the three ejectment applications separately that the landlords had failed to prove that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the case of Avtar Singh, tenant, it was further found that the landlords had failed to prove that the shop, in question, had remained closed for a period of more than eight months without just and sufficient cause. In case of Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, the plea of personal necessity raised on behalf of the landlords was also negatived. Consequently, all the three ejectment applications were dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller, and, thus, maintained the orders rejecting the ejectment applications. It also held that the property, in possession of Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, was residential in nature. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1504, 1614 and 1615 of 1986, whereas Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, has also filed Civil Revision Petition No. 3624 of 1986.

As regards the question as to whether the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation or not, on the appreciation of entire evidence, it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the landlords had failed to prove that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation No meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the landlords to challenge the said findings of the two authorities below. In view of the same, Civil Revision Petition No. 1614 of 1986 is liable to be dismissed,

In Civil Revision Petition No. 1615 of 1986, both the authorities below found that the shop, in dispute, never remained closed for more than four months without just and sufficient cause. This finding could also not be successfully assailed by the landlords. Consequently, Civil Revision Petition No. 1615 of 1986, is also liable to be dismissed

In case of Civil Revision Petition No. 1504 of 1986, it is the common case of the parties that Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, was occupying the ground floor for running the Soda Water Factory whereas he was residing on the upper floor. It was one tenancy and, therefore, it could not be successfully argued that the premises were let out solely for the purpose of business or trade. The question of personal necessity in the said case has been negatived by the Appellate Authority on the grounds that this plea was not taken by the landlords originally, but was pleaded by way of amendment subsequently. Moreover, no such personal necessity was mentioned in the notice given prior to the filing of the ejectment application. Further, the landlords could not urge both the grounds together, i. e., the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the landlords required the same for their use and occupation.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find that the bona fide requirement of the landlords to occupy the premises in case of Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, is amply proved on the record. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. There was nothing wrong when the landlord''s claimed ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and also on the ground that they bona fide required the premises for their use and occupation. Both these grounds are independent and subsist simul taneously. One may occupy the premises if they are unfit and unsafe for human habitation after repairs or re-construction, as the case may be These are two independent and separate grounds available under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act). It was wrong to observe by the Appellate Authority in this case that the ground that the property is unfit and unsafe for human habitation is also in contradiction with the bona fide requirement of this property by the applicants for their use and occupation. The ejectment application was filed in November, 1984. Even if there was no personal necessity at that time, it could arise even during the pendency of the ejectment application as well. Even in this Court, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2529-CII of 1986, was moved in this revision petition to bring on the record the changed circumstances during the pendency of the ejectment application of the landlords. In the affidavit filed in support thereof, it was categorically stated that during the pendency of the decision of the ejectment application, Raj Kumar, landlord, got married and therefore, the requirement to occupy the premises had farther increased. It has also been stated therein that the landlord Naresh Kumar was also getting married in the near future. The affidavit is dated May 11, 1986. It is unfortunate that the disposal of the ejectment application on the ground of personal necessity has taken more than five years. Meanwhile, the requirement of the landlords has increased because of the marriage as well. Otherwise also, it appears, at present, they are living with Sher Chand, who is the father of landlords Nos. 1 to 3 and the husband of landlord No. 4, and they have purchased the house in dispute, for living comfortably separately from him. There is nothing to suggest on the file that the application was mala fide in any manner. It was urged on behalf of the tenant Mohinder Pal Gupta, that earlier the said Sher Chand had sold the house where as the building, in question, was purchased in the year 1981. There is no bar to the sale of the property, as such, under the Act Moreover, the said house belonged to the said Sher Chand and if he sold the same, his sons and his wife could not be deprived of the possession of the demised premises on that account, they purchased the property for living therein. On that basis, they are entitled to eject the tenant for their comfortable living therein. No meaningful arguments could be raised on behalf of the tenant in this behalf Thus, from the facts and circumstances of this case, the requirement of the landlords to occupy the premises is amply proved on the record The approach of the authorities below in this behalf being improper and illegal, the finding arrived at are liable to be set aside.

Consequently, Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1614, 1615 and 3624 of 1986 are dismissed with no order as to costs whereas Civil Revision Petition No 1504 of 1986 is allowed, with no order as to costs, and the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the eviction order is passed against Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, as well as Davinder Kumar, Respondent However, they are allowed three month''s time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are paid within one month from today alongwith an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, the premises would be vacated and the vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlords and the future rent will be paid regularly every month in advance by the 10th of every month.