Rajinder Kumar Sagar and Others vs Shri Gautam Dev Kumar

S.K. Jain, J.—Rajinder Kumar Sagar, petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as the ''landlord'') filed an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short ''the Act'') for the eviction of Gautam Dev Kumar, respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the ''tenant''), from the house fully described in the petition, (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises) on the following grounds :-

(i) Non payment of arrears of rent and House-Tax ;

(ii) Bonafide personal requirement of the landlord ;

(iii) the tenant having ceased to occupy demised premises for a continuous period of more than four months without reasonable cause ; and

(iv) user of the demised premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out.

On being served the tenant filed written Statement denying all the pleas taken in the petition

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller.

Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the demised premises, on the grounds, mentioned in para No. 3 of the application ? OPA

Whether the ejectment petition has been properly filed and verified ? OPA

Whether the petition is bid for non-joinder of the necessary parties ? OPR

Whether the premises in dispute is a scheduled building, if so to what effect ? OPR

Relief.

The tenant tendered the arrears of rent, costs and interest on the first date of hearing and the same was accepted by the landlord Therefore, the ground of nonpayment of rent became non-est. The findings on the grounds of personal requirement, non occupation of the demised premises by the tenant for a continuous period of more than four months; and change of user were returned against the landlord. Issues No. 2 and 3 were decided against the tenant, whereas issue No. 4 was decided in his favour. As a result of his above findings the Rent Controller, dismissed the petition vide his order of August 31, 1987.

Feeling aggrieved, the landlord preferred rent appeal No. 12/7 of .1988, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, vide his judgment of September 1, 1988.

Feeling dissatisfied, the landlord has assailed the said judgment of the Appellate Authority in this Civil Revision before this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Great reliance has been placed on letter Exhibit A-1 on behalf of the landlord for the contention that this letter which has been addressed by the landlord to the tenant, goes to show that the demised premises were let out to the tenant for residential purposes. On the other hand it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the tenant that letter Exhibit R.W 8/A conclusively established on record that the demised premises were let out for the purposes of residence as well as for a clinic. Evidence on record comprised of letters Exhibit A-1 and RW8/A, statements of Dharmvir and Smt Santosh Sagar witnesses of the landlord, Mrs. H. Kumar wife of the tenant, Jaswant Singh RW6, has been scrutinized. No reliance could be placed on the above said two letters because if the intention of the parties was to reduce the terms of the tenancy into writing, nobody had stopped them from executing a regular document of tenancy. Soon after the premises were let out to the tenant his wife had opened the clinic in one of the rooms. Smt. Santosh Sagar wife of the landlord has admitted that the clinic was in existence in the year 1962 and that the landlord did not object to the same till he filed the petition on 1-3-1983. Smt. Santosh Sagar and Dharambir, witnesses of the landlord, have admitted that the landlord has been seeing the clinic being run in the demised premises by the wife of the tenant. Smt. Santosh Sagar wife of the landlord got herself aborted from Doctor Mrs. H. Kumar (wife of the tenant) in the year 1957, as Doctor Mrs. H. Kumar mainly used to take abortion cases. When the premises were let out to the tenant, the landlord certainly knew that the wife of the tenant would open the clinic in a part of the demised premises and that is why the case of the landlord is that Doctor Mrs. H. Kumar had started a clinic after about nine months or one year i.e. soon after the commencement of the tenancy The demised premises were let out somewhere in the year 1961-62 The present petition, as mentioned herein before, was instituted on 1.3.1983. Therefore, it is, established that during this long period of 21 years, the landlord has been seeing the wife of the tenant running the clinic in a portion of the demised premises During this period, he had been receiving rent and not raised any objection what-so-ever. Therefore, he was estopped by his conduct from claiming the eviction of the tenant on the ground of change of user and that being so the finding of the Courts below on this point cannot be faulted.

Now on, to the finding of the Court below on the point of bonafide personal requirement. Admittedly, the landlord Rajinder Kumar Sapar and his wife Doctor Mrs. H. Kumar were British Citizens They had three daughters. Two were married and settled in U. K. It has come in the testimony of Doctor Mrs. H. Kumar that her husband (landlord) had come to India with her in 1982 but shortly thereafter, he had returned and she was also planning to- go back. The bald statement of Doctor Mrs. H. Kumar to the effect that her husband (landlord) was suffering from arthritis and that the climate of India suits him, has remained uncorroborated. In the absence of medical evidence her testimony cannot be relied upon. On appraisal of whole of the evidence the Courts below had rightly come to the conclusion that the landlord and his wife had no real intention to shift from England to India in order to settle down here and, therefore, the landlord had failed to establish that he bona-fide required the demised premises.

Before parting with the judgment, it is expedient to refer to Surinder Kaur v. Ujaggar Singh 1986 (2) R.C.R. 118 cited at the bar on behalf of the landlord. I can possibly have no quarrel with the preposition laid down to the effect that the landlord did not want to leave England and wanted his premises in India for us; as and when he came to India and that his requirement was bonafide but this authority does not, in any way, help the landlord because as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, the case of landlord is that he was suffering from arthritis and the climate of England did not suit him and, therefore, he wanted to shift to India in order to settle down here, he has not been able to substantiate this plea.

In view of the above detailed discussion, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted and is, therefore, affirmed. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.