Ram Parkash Jerath vs Om Parkash

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed by the Appellate Authority

The landlord-Respondent Om Parkash Vij sought the ejectment of his tenant Ram Parkash Jerath, the Petitioner, from house No. 305, Adarsh Nagar, Jullundur, inter alia on the ground that he required the same for his and his son''s personal use and occupation. It was pleaded that neither he nor his son was in occupation of any other residential building within the municipal limits of the urban area concerned, nor they had vacated any such hours since the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act) and nor they owned any other house therein. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was denied that the premises were required by the landlord bona fide for use and occupation. According to him, the landlord and his son did not at all require the house for their use and occupation as the landlord lives at Chandigarh in the residential house as of right and also runs the shop of photographer at Chandigarh Similarly, the sen of the landlord also resides at Kurukthetra in Haryarna where he runs a photo studio. According to him, the landlord had made the ejectment application mala fide with a view to enhance the rent and to desist him from pursuing the application for fixation of the fair rent filed by him. The other allegations made by the landlord were also controverter.

There was some dispute as regards the rate of rent between the parties. According to the landlord, the rate of rent was Rs. 375/- whereas according to the tenant, it was Rs. 350/- per month. However, the tenant tendered the same at the rate of Rs. 373/- per month. On trial, the Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs. 350/- and not Rs. 375/- per month, as alleged by the landlord. On the question of personal necessity, he found that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide. The ground of ill health raised by the landlord was an afterthought According to him, the landlord did not require the premises bona fide either for his personal requirement or that of his son Ultimately, the ejectment application was dismissed In appeal, before the Appellate Authority, the landlord challenged the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of his bona fide requirement only The learned Appellate Authority, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion,-

Keeping in view the above cited facts. I find no reason to hold that the landlord does not bona fide require to shift to his house now on lease with the tenant. Accordingly, the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No. 2 so far as his personal necessity are concerned, are reversed and it is held that the landlord bona fide requires the house, in question, for his personal use and occupation.

In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the landlord has not come with clean hands as he claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month whereas it has been found by both the authorities below that it was only Rs. 350/- per month. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, on this ground alone, the ejectment application was liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also contended that from the evidence on the record, the landlord failed to prove his bona fide need At the most, according to the learned Counsel, it may be the desire of the landlord to shift to Jullundur from Chandigarh, but in no case it could be said to be his requirement. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on Rattan Chand Jain v. Charan Singh 1978 (1) R.C.J. 273. According to the learned Counsel, the view taken by the Appellate Authority was wholly wrong and erroneous On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, a firm finding has been given by the Appellate Authority that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation and that being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Sri. Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Others Vs. Rangaswamy Chettiar, . The learned Counsel also contended that the landlord does not own any other house at any place except the one, in question. His desire to shift to Jullundur from Chandigarh and to settle there was most bona fide and, therefore, the view taken by the Appellate Authority was unexceptionable.

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

The three ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a), (b) and (c) have been duly proved by the landlord. It has come in evidence that he requires the premises for his own occupation and that he is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned. Nor he has vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the urban area concerned. The landlord shifted to Chandigarh in the year 1961 when the Law College was shifted from Jullundur to this place as he was the authorised photographer in the said institution. At that time, the premises, in dispute, were let out to certain other tenant. The present tenant was inducted therein in the year 1973. The ejectment application to evict him therefrom was filed on 28th April, 1979. It is in the evidence of the landlord; rather the common case of the parties, that the landlord is running his studies at Kurukshetra, Chandi Mandir and Chandigarh. At Kurukshetra and Chandi Mandir, the business is managed by his servants. In these circumstances, if the landlord wants to settle in his own house at Jullunder which is the only house owned by him, there is nothing wrong therein and no mala fids could be attributed. In such a situation, even the business at Chandigarh could be managed through his servants or his son. The plea taken by the tenant in the written statement was that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent for which there is no evidence on the record. In the absence of any such evidence, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the tenant that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide. In any case, even if two views are possible on the evidence on the record, this, by itself, is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Authority in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction u/s 15 of the Act.

The contention raised en behalf of the tenant that the ejectment application was a counterblast as he had already filed an application for the fixation of the fair rent has absolutely no relevancy. Moreover, the tenant himself was not sure as to when the said application was filed and ultimately what happened thereto. No documentary evidence was brought on the record to prove the said fact.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the findings of the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for three months arc deposited with the Rent Controller within one month along with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period of three months he shall vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord.