Ram Dass Mahajan vs Brahm Bhushan

S.P. Goyal, J.—Landlord Braham Bhushan filed a petition for ejectment of Ram Dass tenant from the house in dispute at Chandigarh on the grounds of non-payment of rent and the bona fide need for hit own use and occupation. The arrears of rent were duly tendered and accepted on the first date of hearing. So, the only dispute that survives for consideration is as to whether the landlord requires the premises in dispute for his personal use.

The case set up in the petition was that the landlord has since retired from the Army and needs the house for the purpose of the education of his children and to set up some business. He further pleaded that he was in occupation of one room, kitchen, bath-room and a lavatory on the first floor of the house in dispute and this accommodation was not sufficient for his requirements.

The petition was contested by the tenant who controverted the plea of personal need. The Rent Controller upheld the claim of the landlord and ordered ejectment. Its finding having been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, the tenant has come up in this revision.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has attacked the correctness of the impugned order contending that the story of setting up of business at Chandigarh is only a pretext to seek ejectment of the tenant. He further argued that the Respondent is carrying on timber business with his father at Badni Kalan and is permanently settled there The contention of the Learned Counsel appears to be well-merited. Admittedly, the landlord came to Chandigarh and stayed for 3/4 months on the first floor. No evidence has been brought on She record if he explored any ground for setting up his business at Chandigarh, during this period Even in his statement in Court now he has not disclosed as to what business he wants to set up at Chandigarh or he had made any exploration in this regard. Mere ipsi dexit of the landlord that he wants to set up business cannot be accepted unless some other circumstances are brought on the record to show his bona fids The story of setting up of a business is nothing but a pretext to seek ejectment of the tenant If the landlord was really serious to set up some business at Chandigarh, he would have certainly occupied the accommodation already in his possession and started the business and thereby shown that he positively intended to settle at Chandigarh. There was thus hardly any evidence worth reliance to support the findings of the authorities below.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, vehemently urged that the concurrent finding recorded by the authorities below is a finding of fact and is not open to review by reappraisal of the evidence. The power of revision u/s 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is not confined to questions of law and jurisdiction. The order of the lower authority can be interfered with by this Court on the ground of impropriety as well. If the finding cannot be justified on the material available on the record, it would be liable to be revised under section, 15. As already observed above the finding here is based on the mere ipsi dexit of the landlord, which is not sufficient to uphold the bonafide need. As has been held in a number of decisions recently to succeed, the landlord has to show not only the desire to occupy the premises in dispute but also the element of need. The later constituent is conspicious by its absence in the present case nor there is any finding recorded by the authorities below in this regard. The question of the bono fide need having been thus not considered in the light of the latest pronouncements of this Court and the evidence produced by the landlord in support of his bona fide need being wholly insufficient, the finding recorded by the authorities below cannot be sustained and would be revisable u/s 15 of the said Act.

In the result, this revision is accepted impugned order set aside and the ejectment petition dismissed with costs.