Rajesh Kumar Jain vs M/s Kamal Kumar and Brothers and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This it landlord''s revision petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

Rajesh Kumar Jain, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenants from the residential house. No. BIX 185 situated on the first floor as there are shops underneath thereto on the ground floor. The premises were let out at a monthly rent of Rs 30/ The ejectment application was filed on October 1,1980, on the grounds that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation It was pleaded that the portion shown in the red colour in the site plan was in a dilapidated condition and that half of the portion had fallen down due to rains The remaining part of the building was also in a very bad state and was about to fall any moment As regards the personal requirement, it was stated that the landlord was living at Amritsar whereas all his relations were living at Ludhiana He also wanted to settle at Ludhiana. He was carring the business of yarn at Amritsar, but be wanted to shift his residence as well as his business to Ludhiana He was 21 years old, unmarried and wanted to have his marriage at Ludhiana. In the written statement, the tenant denied that the premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was further pleaded that the application for eviction had been filed to pressurise the tenants to increase the rent. The landlord did not require the same for his personal use and occupation as he was living in Amritsar The property, in dispute, was also used for commercial purpose and, therefore, it was nonresidential. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the building, in question, was very old and being in a deteriorated condition, had become unfi and unsafe for human habituation It was also found that the premises, in dispute, were bona fide required for personal use and occupation by the landlord In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that neither the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation, nor the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. According to the Appellate Authority, both the pleas were inconsistent and, therefore, the eviction application could net be said to be a bona fide one Moreover, according to the Appellate Authority, the landlord bad not proved on the record that he had submitted any plan to the Municipal Committee for reconstructing the bouse. In view of those findings, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the findings of the Rent Controller have been reversed in appeal arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures. According to the learned Counsel, since most of the relations of the landlord are settled in Ludhiana, he wanted to shift from Amritsar to that place and wanted to occupy the premises, in dispute, for residential purposes It was also contended that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as it was a very old building The approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wrong and misconcieved. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant-Respondents submitted that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide because he had been renting out the shops at Ludhiana. In case he wanted to shift to Ludhiana on account of his business as well, he would not has rented out the shops there. Moreover, seme of his family members are living at Amritsar and the landlord is also carrying on his business there. There was no reason why he wanted to shift his residence and business from Amsitsar to Ludhiana. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the requirement of the landlord could not be held to be a bona fide one.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

It is not disputed that the landlord is not occupying any residential building in the urban area concerned, nor he has vacated any after the coming into force of the Rent Act If any shop was vacated by the tenant and re-let out to some other tenant, the same was of no consequence because the ejectment of the tenants was being sought from a residential building and not from commercial premises. The approach of the Appellate Authority is apparently wrong when it observed that the landlord had other property within the municipal limits of Ludhiana which fact has been withheld by him. There is no evidence on the record that the landlord is in occupation of any residential building within the limits of Ludhiana. Moreover, both the grounds for eviction, i.e., the requirement for personal necessity, and the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation are independent grounds. The mere fact that the landlord alleged that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation does not mean that he could not occupy the same for his residential purposes. The question of taking any further steps for remodelling the house, in dispute, did not arise unless the same was vacated. The aoproach of the Appellate Authority, in this behalf, was misconceived. Nothing has been brought on the record by the tenants as to how the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide. If the landlord wanted to shift his business from Amritsar to Ludhiana because his other near relations are settled at Ludhiana and he being unmarried wanted to settle at Ludhiana, there was nothing to doubt the bona fides of the landlord. Under the circumstances, the finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf was correct which has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures In view of this finding, the question whether the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation need not be gone into.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of tenants is restored with no order as to costs. However, they are allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, If any and the advance rent for three months are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month along with an undertaking, in writing, that after expiry of the said period of three months the premises will be vacated and the vacant po5session thereof would be handed over to the landlord.