Sardara Singh and Another vs Banarshi Dass

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlords'' revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The landlords sought the ejectment of their terart(sic) Bsnarsi Dass from the barsati portion of the house, in dispute, on the allegations that the rent was Rs. 250/- per month; the tenant was in arrears of rent since October 1, 1981; and that they bona fide required the premises for their own use and occupation as the ground floor of the building, in dispute, in their possession, was insufficient to meet their requirement. The family of Sardara Singh, landlord, consisted of his wife and three children and his father Arjan Singh. In the written statement, the tenant pleaded that the rent was Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 250/- per month. The landlords never issued any receipts for the rent paid and, therefore, they had claimed the arrears of rent. It was also pleaded that their requirement was not bona fide. The accommodation already in their possession on the ground floor was sufficient to meet their requirement The learned Rent Controller found that the rent was Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 250/- per month. On the question of bona fide requirement, the learned Rent Controller concluded that the landlord did not require the premises, in dispute, for their own use and occupation and that the instant eviction application had been brought just to pressurise the tenant to enhance the rate of rent. Consequently the eviction application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the learned Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this revision petition in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that from the evidence on the record, it has been amply proved that the rent was increased from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 250/- per month later on and, therefore, the findings of the authorities below in this behalf are wrong and illegal. The learned Counsel further contended that in any case, the bona fide requirement of the landlords to occupy the demised premises has been amply proved on the record, but the approach of the authorities below being illegal, the said finding is vitiated. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 250/- per month and that the requirement of the landlords was not bona fide According to the learned Counsel, those are findings of fact based on evidence and, therefore, 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, .

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

So far as the rate of rent is concerned, I do not find any illegality in the concurrent findings of the authorities below. It is the admitted case of the parties that the tenant was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, but according to the landlords, the same was increased subsequently for which no evidence has been produced. It was, therefore, rightly concluded that the rent was Rs. 150/- per month.

As regards the bona fide requirement of the landlords to occupy the demised premises for their own use and occupation, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the authorities below is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. As a matter of fact, the findings are based on surmises and conjectures. In that behalf the learned Appellate Authority observed,-

Ordinarily, the landlords would have asked for the eviction of those tenants instead of seeking the eviction of the Respondent from the solitary room (Barasti) on the second floor, as accommodation on the first floor would be convenient for them. Besides, the only room in possession of the tenant cannot meet their requirement, for according to their own case, they not only need accommodation for their father and co-landlord Nirmal Singh, but also for their guests.

The denised premises belong to two landlords, Sardara Singh and Nirmal Singh. Admittedly, Sardara Singh, landlord, has three children aged 14 years, 10 years and 8 years. The premises were let out about 20 years back, Nirmal Singh, landlord, has appeared in the witness box as A W. 4 He is about 29 years of age He has categorically stated that he is residing in the building and that he is to contract marriage, but the same is not being done for want of accommodation. Admittedly, there are three rooms on the ground floor which are in occupation of the landlords at present. Their father Arjan Singh is also living with them. The children of Sardara Singh, landlord, are of growing age. The approach of the authorities below that after the coming into force of the Rent Act in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the landlords rented out the premises on the first floor is wholly wrong and misconceived The Rent Act was made applicable to the urban area concerned in the year 1972. The ejectment application in the present case, was filed in January, 1983. Though the tenant alleged that during the pendency of the proceedings, a portion of the building was rent out, yet there was no evidence to this effect. If after the year 1972, the first floor of the building was rented out, it was of no consequence because the ejectment application was riled after about 11 yearn of the enforcement of the Rent Act in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Besides, it has not been found by the authorities below that Nirmal Singh, landlord, was not living in the demised premises. According to the learned Rent Controller, Nirmal Singh, landlord, is working at Rupar which is situated at a distance of 50 Kilometers from Chandigarh and it does not seem plausible that he will daily come to Chandigarh. This approach is wholly misconceived It is a matter of common know ledge that in connection with their vocations, people do come to Chandigarh from other places and return there daily and do fro out of Chandigarh to other places and come back here daily covering long distances. The Appellate Authority has not given any finding as to the requirement of Nirmal Singh, landlord, of the demised promises. Even in his cross examination, it could not be brought out that he was not residing at Chandigarh in the house, in dispute. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that it is amply proved that the requirement of the landlords to occupy the demised premises is bona fide.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by both the authorities below are set aside and the ejectment application filed by the landlords is allowed 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, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month along with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the period of the said three months he shall vacate the premises and handover their vacant possession to the landlords. No costs.