Ram Lal Arora vs Dr. P.S. Rawat and another

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

The premises, in dispute, are situate in house No. 2408, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. They were rented out to the tenant Dr. P.S. Rawat, in April, 1979, at a monthly rent of Rs. 325/-. The present ejectment application was filed on April 26, 1983, on the grounds that the tenant had changed the user of the premises by opening a clinical laboratory therein and that the same were required by the landlord for his bona fide use and occupation. It was also pleaded that at present, the landlord was residing in a rented accommodation in a barsati consisting of one room and a kitchen. It was insufficient for a family of four persons including the mother of the landlord who was dependent upon him and was also a heart patient. It was difficult for her to negotiate the staircase to the third floor. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was denied that there was any change of user as alleged. According to him, he was using the premises for the purpose for which they were let out. It was also denied that the present premises were bona fide required for the use and occupation of the landlord. According to him, the present ejectment application had been moved by the landlord with a mala fide intention as two such applications filed by him earlier had already been dismissed. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the demised premises were let out for the purpose of residence whereas the tenant had subsequently started using the same for running a clinical laboratory. Thus, it was a clear change of user thereof. It was also found that the landlord required the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant on December 14, 1984. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and held that sines there was no plea in the ejectment application that the premises were rented out due to financial constraint by the landlord, in the absence of any such plea by him, his statement that he let out the premises due to financial difficulty will be held to be an afterthought. It was also held that the statement of the landlord was not sufficient to prove his bona fide need to occupy the premises. As regards the plea of change of user, the Appellate Authority found that in view of the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1985 of 1985 Dr. P.S. Rawat v. Ram Lal Arora, decided on November 19, 1985, it could not be held that the premises were being used for a purpose other than the one for which the same were let out. Consequently, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

During the pendency of this revision petition, the landlord also moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1662-CII of 1986, for bringing on record the subsequent events. Therein, it is stated that after the filing of the ejectment application on April 26, 1983, when the landlord had only one son, he has been blessed with two daughters on September 16, 1983 and November 17, 1984. Thus, one room rented accommodation with him had become highly inadequate for his six members family. No counter-affidavit has been filed controverting the said allegations.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his use and occupation, but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitarily. According to the learned Counsel, necessary averments were made in the ejectment application. It was wrong on the part of the Appellate Authority to observe that since there was no plea in the petition that the premises were let out due to financial constraint, the statement of the landlord to that effect was an after thought. In any case, argued the learned Counsel, in view of the subsequent events, the present accommodation in occupation of the landlord was insufficient and, therefore, his requirement was bona fide. It was also contended that the landlord had changed the user of the premises not by running a clinic alone but also by running a laboratory in the demised premises. According to the learned Counsel, in the earlier judgment of this Court in the afore-mentioned revision petition, it was held that the premises were let out for the purpose of residence as well as for running a clinic but it was nowhere held that the landlord was entitled to run a laboratory therein. Thus argued the learned Counsel, on both the grounds, the tenant was liable to be ejected from the demised premises. On the other had, the learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that the present ejectment application was a fourth attempt on the part of the landlord to eject him. Earlier, he had filed a civil suit on April 28, 1981, which was stayed by Supreme Court. Later on, he moved the application for ejectment on June 8, 1982, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Another application was filed on December 24, 1982, which was ultimately dismissed by the High Court. The instant ejectment application was filed on April 26, 1983, on the ground of personal necessity; which ground was never pleaded earlier by the landlord. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the requirement of the landlord could not be held to be bona fide. In support of the contentions, the learned Counsel relied upon Labhu Ram v. Om Parkash Maheshwari (1984) 2 R. C. R. 84 and Mangat Ram v. Om Parkash 1983 (2) R. C. R. 297.

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

From the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller rightly held that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. Admittedly, presently, the landlord is residing in rented accommodation consisting of one room on the third floor, i.e., the barasati, and paying Rs. 150/- per month as rent. The premises, in dispute, were let out to the tenant in April, 1979, when his family consisted only of two members, i.e., the husband and the wife whereas now three children have taken birth during the pendency of the eviction application. Besides, the mother of the landlord is also residing with him as stated by him when he appeared as A.W. 1. In the presence of this evidence, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the tenant that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide. This itself was a change in the circumstance on which the landlord could seek the ejectment of the tenant Thus, the approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly illegal, improper and misconceived and therefore, the finding arrived at was vitiated. In view of the subsequent event brought on the record, the landlord was entitled to eject the tenant on the ground of his bona fide requirement. It is not disputed that this is the only house owned by the landlord in the urban area concerned. The present accommodation consisting one room was wholly insufficient to meet his requirements. In view of this finding, the question as to whether there was a change of user or not need not be gone into.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are paid within one month from today along with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, the premises would be vacated and vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlord and the future rent will be paid regularly in advance by the 10th of every month.