Shri Dev Raj Gujral vs Shri Tarsem Lal

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the courts below.

The landlord Dev Raj Gujral is the owner of H. No. 2562, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. The house is constructed on a 7-1/2 Marlas plot. Its first floor, consisting of two rooms, one big room, kitchen, bathroom verandah, etc., was let out to the tenant for a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-, excluding water and electricity charges. The tenancy commenced somewhere in the year 1968. The ejectment application was filed on 20th October, 1981, on the grounds that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his personal use and occupation, as the accommodation available with him i. e., two rooms on the ground floor of the said house, was insufficient having regard to his family which consisted of himself, his wife, son, son''s wife and two school-going children of that son of his; that he retired from Government service at Chandigarh in the year 1977 where he was in occupation of Government accommodation; that due to paucity of accommodation he had to go to Jullundur to his second son who was already living there. In the Written Statement, it was pleaded that the landlord was permanently residing at Jullundur and that there was no question of his shifting to Chandigarh; that one big room and a kitchen on the ground floor were on rent with one Shanti Sagar, and that in case the landlord genuinely required more accomodation, the accommodation in the occupation of said Shanti Sagar would be best suitable for him. The learned Rent Controller found that the need of the landlord for the premises in question was not bona fide and genuine. In view of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller, and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissatisfied with it the landlord has filed this petition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner after retirement had to go to Jullundur to live with his second son as the accommodation at Chandigarh was not sufficient for his needs. Moreover, the son at Chandigarh is working in the Punjab Roadways, Nawan Shahr Depot, whereas his family, i. e., his wife and two school going children are living at Chandigarh in the house in dispute. Therefore, the landlord wanted to live at Chandigarh with his son''s family here. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the tenant Respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and that being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence on record. It is true that ordinarily this Court does not interfere with the finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction but if the whole approach of the authorities below in the matter was wrong, illegal and misconceived then the finding of the authorities below would be vitiated. According to the authorities below, the portion of the ground floor which is in occupation of the other tenant Shanti Sagar aforesaid is best suited to the landlord, and, so, instead of seeking the ejectment of the present tenant it would have been advisable to seek the ejectment of said Shanti Sagar. This approach of the authorities J below is wholly misconceived. It is for the landlord to decide as to which portion of the house or the building is suitable for him. Ad-mittedly, the accommodation with the present tenant is much more than the one with said Shanti Sagar. The landlord retired from Government Service at Chandigarh in the year 1977 where he was living in Government house, and he was obliged to go to Jullundur to live with his second son there as the two rooms accommodation on the ground floor of the house in dispute at Chandigarh was not sufficient for his family along with the family of his son who is already living in the premises in dispute. Moreover, according to the landlord, said Shanti Sagar has already promised to vacate the premises in his occupation. It means that the landlord requires the whole house for himself. Thus, the need of the landlord in the present case is most genuine because after retirement he wants to occupy his own house constructed by him for this purpose, particularly so when his one son is already living there with his family. Nothing could be pointed out on behalf of the tenant as to how requirement of the landlord was not bona fide. Admittedly, the landlord does not own any other house in the urban area concerned except the house in dispute. It is true that the authorities under the Act have to see that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide but at the same time, the requirement has to be seen from the landlord''s point of view. It is for the tenant to bring circumstances on record to prove that the claim of the landlord is not bona fide, if the essential ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act are proved, i.e., landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation: that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned and nor has he vacated any without any sufficient cause after commencement of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the present case it could not be said that the requirement of the landlord after his retirement in the year 1977 was not bona fide in any manner. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wholly miss-conceived and, thus, wrong and illegal. Consequently, the petition succeeds the impugned order is set aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenant-Respondents, with cost.

However, the Respondents are allowed three months time to vacate the demised premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month, with an undertaking in writing, that after the expiry of said period of three months, vacant possession shall be handed over, and the rent for this period shall be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.