Shri Ram Parshad (Died) through L.Rs. vs Jawala Parshad

Ashok Bhan, J.—Present revision petition filed by the tenant arises out of the following facts:-

Landlord-respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant") from House No. 510, Lalkurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt on two grounds i.e. (i) that the tenant was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and the same is due to the landlord for the period from 1.10.1979 to 31.3.1982 amounting to Rs. 600/- and (ii) that the tenancy premises were required by the landlord bona fide for his residence and for the residence of his family members. It was averred in the pleadings that the landlord was residing in House No. 506 Lalkurti bazar, Ambala Cantt. with his mother as licensee ; that the present accommodation consisted of only one room which was not sufficient for his requirement as the family of the landlord consisted of his wife, one married, son, wife and three children of the married son. Tenant after service of notice entered appearance and contested the ejectment petition. Arrears of rent were tendered under protest. It was stated that the rent had already been paid but the tender was being made to avoid the ejectment. On merits, it was denied that he was a tenant under the landlord in the premises in question. As regards the ground of personal necessity, it was pleaded that the landlord was living in House No. 506 in his capacity as owner that the said house consisted of four rooms besides allied amenities such as kitchen, bath rooms etc. and that two more new rooms have been raised by the landlord en the first floor of the said house; that the mother of the landlord was an old lady; that the wife of the landlord had died after the filing of the petition. It was alleged that the landlord had another house on the back of the property in dispute which he was letting out to various tenants from time to time. It was denied that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation ; that the petition for ejectment has been filed with a male fide intention so as to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA.

Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the grounds that the petitioner requires the premises in dispute for his personal necessity or use or occupation ? OPA.

Whether the application has not been filed in terms of the rules framed in the Act, if so, to what effect? OPR.

Whether the respondent is entitled to refund of the amount paid in excess ? OPR.

Relief.

Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and that the landlord required the premises in dispute for his own occupation. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the landlord. Issue No. 3 was not pressed and on issue No. 4, no evidence was led regarding double payment. Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute. Tenant carried an appeal against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Appellate Authority confirmed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Under these circumstances, the present revision petition has been filed by the tenant challenging his eviction form the premises in dispute.

Both the Courts below have recorded a finding to the effect that the premises in dispute were required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. Evidence on the file shows that Hardwari Lal father of the landlord had, under the family arrangement, given House No. 506 to his wife as back as in the year 1932. Landlord had himself purchased the house in dispute on 16.4.1958 through a registered sale deed Ex. P-3. At that time, the property consisted of only one room. Thereafter, landlord constructed one room on the first floor. The room on the first floor was let out to one Ravel Singh. The family of the landlord is residing in the room situated towards the back of the room in occupation of the tenant on the ground floor. In House No. 5% which was in occupation of the mother of the landlord has got two rooms on the first floor which are occupied by the tenants. The wife of the landlord had died after the filing of the petition for ejectment. Landlord has retired from service and he wanted to live with his son in his own house. In the given circumstances, it cannot be doubted that the landlord wants to reside after his retirement along with his son and his family in the room adjoining to the room occupied by his son and his family.

No exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the Courts below on this point. Tenant filed two Misc. applications in this Court in which it has been averred that wife of the landlord had died during the pendency of the ejectment petition and that the mother of the landlord had also died. Counsel appearing for the tenant argued that subsequent events can be taken into consideration; that the landlord had become the owner of the house No. 506 after the death of his mother and that the accommodation in occupation of the landlord in House No. 506 was sufficient for his personal needs. In reply to the application, landlord has admitted that his wife had died during the pendency of the petition. It was further admitted that his mother had also expired during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court but it was denied that he had become the owner of House No. 506. In the reply, it was stated that House No. 506 was willed away by his mother in favour of one of her grand daughters. No doubt subsequent events can be taken into consideration. There is also no doubt that mother of the landlord died during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court. Death of the wife of the landlord was taken notice so by the appellate authority. Landlord has denied that he has become the owner of House No. 506 which belongs to his mother. Counsel appearing for the tenant argued that the case be remanded back to the Rent Controller for taking evidence as to whether the mother of the landlord had willed away the property in favour of her grand daughter or not. No doubt, subsequent events can be taken into consideration but a denovo trial cannot be allowed to be started again. The allegations of the tenant that the landlord has become owner of House No. 506 stands denied. The landlord wants to shift to his own house and live with his son and his family in the evening of his life which, under the circumstances, is not much what he is asking for.

For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this revision petition which is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Tenant is granted time upto 31.10.1994 to vacate the premises in dispute provided he deposits/pays all arrears of rent including the rent for the month of October by 10th of October, 1994.