Shanti Parkash and Others vs Roshan Lal

Ashok Bhan, J.—Landlord-petitioners (here in after referred to as the landlord) filed an ejectment application against the tenant respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) on the ground of nonpayment of rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month as rent from 1.8.1975 to 31.3.1979 and that the premises were required by the landlord bona fide for his own use and occupation. The landlord was living with his mother in one room with his wife and four children which was insufficient. That he had purchased the premises from Ruldu Singh and Mani Ram on 24.2 1978. That a sum of Rs. 45/- was being paid as rent by the tenant to the previous owners and that this fact finds mentioned in the said-deed Exhibit P-1. This petition was contested by the tenant. In the written statement he claimed that the monthly rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 20/- per month which as per his claim, he had paid to the previous owners for the period upto February 23, 1978. He agreed to tender rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month for the period after February 23,1978. The claim of the landlord about his bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation was also contested. On the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed:-

Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so, to what effect ? OPA.

2 Whether the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his own occupation as alleged in para No. 4 (w) of the petition ? OPA

Relief.

After recording evidence and hearing the parties, Rent Controller returned the finding that the rate of rent was Rs. 43/- per month and the tenant failed to tender the arrears of rent and, therefore, liable to be ejected. On issue No. 2, it was held that the premises were not required by the landlord for his own use and occupation, as alleged by him Because of the findings recorded by the Rent Controller under issue No. 1. the tenant was ordered to be ejected. Against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Landlord filed cross-objections under issue No. 2, with regard to occupation of the premises for his personal use. Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the trial Court under issue No. 1 and held that the landlord failed to establish that the rate of rent was Rs. 45/- per month. Cross-objections filed by the landlord under issue No. 2 regarding his bona fide need of the premises in dispute were dismissed.

Aggrieved against the order of the Courts below, the landlord has filed the present revision petition. The landlord has challenged the findings recorded by the Courts below on both the issues, i. e. issue Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the rate of rent as well as his personal need to occupy the premises.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. So far as issue No. 1 is concerned, I affirm the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. The landlord has failed to establish that the rate of rent was Rs. 45/- per month as claimed by him. The sole reliance is placed upon sale-deed Exhibit P-1, which is a document executed between the landlord and the previous owners. No doubt, in this document it is mentioned that the tenant sitting in the premises was paying Rs. 45/- per month as rent and that the landlord would be entitled to recover the rent at the rate of Rs. 4 5/- per month. This document is between the landlord and the previous owners, which cannot bind the tenant. There is no other evidence on record to prove the rate of rent to be Rs. 45/- per month. Reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of landlord in the absence of any other documentary evidence. The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority under issue No. 1 is, therefore, affirmed.

Coming to issue No. 2, the Courts below have held that the landlord was not entitled to get the tenant ejected on the ground of personal necessity as the need of the landlord was not real and genuine because he was already living with his mother for the last 31/2 years. That the landlord failed to produce his mother in the witness box to depose that she did not want to live with her son. I have perused the record. The Courts below hive erred in deciding issue No. 2 against the landlord. The landlord has stepped into the witness box and stated that his mother was living in one room which he was sharing with her alongwith his wife and four children. He has further stated that he wanted to occupy the premises for himself and his family, which consisted of his wife and four children. That the accommodation of one room in which he was living with his mother was insufficient for him. It was not suggested to the landlord that he was in occupation of more accommodation or that the accommodation in his possession was sufficient keeping in view the size of his family. Under the circumstances, the statement of the landlord regarding his bona fide requirement of the premises for his personal use and occupation could not be discarded. Landlord''s family consists of himself, his wife and four children. The landlord cannot be forced to stay with his mother in an accommodation of one room, along with members of his family. Personal necessity of the landlord is writ large and he could not be denied the right to live in his own house under the circumstances. Simply because the, landlord did not produce his mother in the witness box, in the facts of this case, cannot be taken against him to draw an inference that the accommodation which he was sharing with his mother was sufficient for his own needs, There is not even a suggestion muchless any evidence to suggest that the landlord was occupying more than one room, which he was sharing with his mother. The landlord is thus entitled to eject the tenant from the premises in dispute.

The revision petition is accepted, orders passed by the Courts below are set-aside and the order of ejectment is passed against the tenant to vacate the premises within one month from this date. No costs.