Shanti Devi vs Maya Devi and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—The landlady has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated 5th March, 1980, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing her application was maintained.

An ejectment application was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, petitioner, against Ganda Ram (now deceased) represented by his legal representatives, Maya Devi and others, stating therein that the respondent obtained on rent the ground floor of the house bearing Khana Shumari No. 663/9 in the year 1968, vide rent note dated 14th January, 1968, on the monthly rent of Rs. 32/-. The eviction of the respondent was sought on the ground inter alia of bona fide requirement of the landlady for her ova use and occupation as she was not in possession of any other property in the urban area of Amritsar nor she vacated any such property after the enforcement of the Act III of 1949 and at present she is residing with one of her sons at Faridabad and she wants to shift to her own property and to pass last days of her life in comfort in her own house. It was also stated that there are two unmarried handicapped daughters, who are also living with her at Faridabad in the house of her son, Ashok Malhotra. The application was contested by the respondent. It was pleaded that she has settled at Faridabad and did not want to shift to Amritsar and that she had also given another portion on first floor to another tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 4/- after letting out the property in dispute to the respondent. It was further pleaded that in case she needed accommodation for her own occupation, she could have got possession from other tenant. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :--

Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent? If so, to what effect ?

Whether the applicant requires the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation and is not in possession of any other house in the Urban area concerned and has not vacated any such premises in the urban area after the commencement of Act III of 1949?

Whether the notice of termination of tenancy was not legal ?

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this application.

Relief.

The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application as he came to the conclusion that the landlady has failed to prove her bona fide requirements for her own use and occupation. In appeal, the finding of the Rent Controller has been maintained. Feeling aggrieved against this, landlady has come up in revision to this Court.

On 27th of August,. 1981, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner, stating that during the pendency of this petition, certain events have taken place which should be taken into consideration while deeding this petition. In the affidavit of Ashok Malhotra son of Smt. Shanti Devi, Petitioner, it was stated that in April, 1981 he was promoted as Incharge of the Branch Office of the Company at Hyderabad and since 9th May, 1981, he is serving there and that in Hyderabad he was staying in Guest House accommodation paying Rs. 350/- per month, which accommodation is totally inadequate for accommodating his mother and two handi apped sisters Notice of this application was given to the respondents. In reply thereto an affidavit of Subhash Kumar, son of Ganda Ram deceased has been filed. It has been stated therein that on 18th November, 1980 the petitioner has filed a fresh application for ejectment in the Court of the Rent Controller, Amritsar, which is still pending One of the issues, according to the affidavit, is whether the landlady requires the premises bona fide for her own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of her family members As regards the averments made in the affidavit of Ashok Malhotra son of the Petitioner, it has beer, stated that the family of Ashok Malhotra and the petitioner are still living in Faridabad and other facts cannot be admitted for want of knowledge.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the decision, of their lordships of the Supreme Court in M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma 1981 (2) R.C.R. 74 the subsequents events in the proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, can always be taken into consideration and the relief has to be moulded according to the situation as on the date of the order On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has also moved a fresh application for his ejectment on 18th November, 1980 and is still pending and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to prove her bona fide requirements in that application Any subsequent event cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in this revision petition particularly when the petitioner has already moved the Rent Controller It was also submitted that both the authorities below have come to a concurrent finding that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide one and, therefore this Court cannot interfere in its revisional jurisdiction.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The ejectment application which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 18th November, 1980, is mainly on the ground that his son has been married and, therefore, she requires the premises for her married son, as provided in Section 13(3)(iv) wherein the landlord is entitled to seek the ejectment of his tenant if the building is required for the residence of his son who is married. As regards the subsequent event of the transfer of Shri Ashok Malhotra with whom she was residing at Faridabad had taken place in April, 1981, that is, much after the said ejectment application was filed in November, 1980. Moreover, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the application filed by the landlady and which is pending in the Court of the Rent Controller will be withdrawn by her in case her revision petition is allowed.

What has weighed with the authorities below while dismissing the application of the landlady was that there is no evidence on the record to show why she wanted to come from Faridabad when she is living at that place since 1968 and secondly why she wanted to live on the ground floor when she could also live on the first floor which she rented out a few months before moving the ejectment application On the facts admitted, both the grounds are not tenable in view of the transfer of Ashok Malhotra, son of the petitioner. Under no circumstances, the bona fides of the landlady could be doubted when she states that she wants to occupy her premises for her own use. It is admitted fact that she has got two unmarried daughters who are handicapped. Under these circumstances, the explanation that she wants to occupy the ground floor is very plausible. It is for that reason that the first floor was rented out because it was of no use to her in these circumstances The requirement of law is that if the landlord can prove that the building he has vacated or rented out was for sufficient cause, he is entitled to ejectment of his tenant if the other requirements are fulfilled In the present case, the authorities below have failed to take into consideration the admitted fact that the landlady has got two unmarried daughters who are handicapped This amply proves the bona fides of the landlady to occupy the ground floor for her own use and for the use of her unmarried daughters and now the married son also Thus, taking into consideration the subsequent events as well as the evidence on the record, it will be of no use to direct the petitioner to persue her application which she filed on 18th November, 1980. The present application was filed in 1976 and under these circumstances, in order to avoid any further delay, it is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the ejectment of her tenant on the facts of the present case.

Consequently, this petition succeeds and the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the application for ejectment is allowed with no order as to costs. However, the respondent tenant is allowed two months time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears, if any, and advance rent for two months are deposited with the Rent Controller within a fortnight from today.