Shri Sudarshan Kumar and another vs Shmt. Satwant Kaur and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlords revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.

The landlords Sudarshan Kumar and Smt. Satya Wati sought the ejectment of their tenants from the rented land by filing the ejectment application dated April 22, 1974. Originally, Girdhari Lal, was the tenant who was inducted in the year 1939 on a rental of Rs. 409/- per annum. After the death of Girdhari Lal, his widow, daughters and sons became the tenants on the rented land. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the rented land was bona fide required for doing business by the landlords. They did not have any such other land in their possession in the urban area concerned nor had they vacated any such land; and that the tenants had sublet or transferred the tenancy rights in favour of Respondent No. 12, i.e., Satish Kumar. In reply to the said ejectment application, the tenants denied that the landlords bona fide required the rented land and that the premises had been sublet to Satish Kumar, as alleged. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion,--

In the instant case, the Respondent-tenant has not led any evidence to show that the application has been made with some ulterior motive. The applicants who are not in possession of any rented land after the commencement of the Act without sufficient cause, are to be held in bona fide need of the rented land in dispute as Sudarshan Kumar applicant who is in a position to run the foundry, intends to start foundry business at Amritsar which is admittedly the main market of the said business and there is a safeguard for the tenant that if he does not occupy the rented land within the prescribed period, he is entitled to claim the possession back from the landlord.

On the question of subletting as well, the finding was that Respondent No. 12 Satish Kumar was a sub-tenant on the premises, in question, and was not a direct tenant under the landlords, as claimed. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on June 15, 1978. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed both the findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that neither the landlords bona fide required the rented land for their use and occupation, nor the same had been sublet to Satish Kumar as alleged. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside vide impugned order dated November 13, 1981.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the view taken by the Appellate Authority with respect to the bona fide requirement of the landlords was wholly erroneous and improper. It has acted on surmises and conjectures whereas the Rent Controller rightly concluded that the landlords bona fide required the premises for doing their foundry business. According to the learned Counsel, though the premises were let out as far back as in the year 1959 but the landlords never claimed enhanced rent, nor sought their ejectment therefrom till the ejectment application was filed in the year 1974. It was also submitted that the landlords are already doing foundry business at Tarn Taran of which Amritsar is the main market. Moreover, the tenants also carry on the same business in the demised promises and no mala fides have been attributed by the tenants in their reply. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the requirement of the landlords has been proved to be bona fide and the landlords were entitled to the eviction order.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that primarily the conclusion reached by the Appellate Authority is a finding of fact and, therefore, the same could not be interfered with in the re visional jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Gurbachan Singh v. M/s. Gainda Ram Parkash Chand 1981 (2) R.C.J. 98 and Siri Ram v. Air Com. Mahabir Chand (1981) 83 P.L.R. 424. According to the learned Counsel, the landlords did not state in the ejectment application as to for what purpose, the rented land was required by them. In the absence of such a plea, the view taken by the Appellate Authority was perfectly legal and no interference was called for.

After hearing, the learned Counsel for the parties, I find merit in this revision petition.

Admittedly, the landlords are already carrying on the foundry business at Tarn Taran and Amritsar is the main market for the same. Even the tenants are carrying on the same business in the demised premises. Therefore, the mere fact that this fact as such was not mentioned in the ejectment application was of no consequence, as no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the tenants on that account. Moreover, the tenants did not allege any mala fides against the landlords in seeking their ejectment. The approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly wrong, illegal and improper. According to the Appellate Authority even if the pleadings are ignored and the reluctance of the landlords to give the details of the proposed business in the beginning, it was their duty to have placed on record other relvant material in the course of evidence from which it could be possible to infer that they really and genuinely needed the premises for a certain business for which certain steps had been taken. As observed earlier, this approach is wholly misconceived. The premises, in dispute, were required by the landlords bona fide for their foundry business which they are carrying on at Tarn Taran. Even the tenants are carrying on the business in the demised premsies. It is not a case where it was a mere desire or wish of the landlord to eject his tenant, as held by the Appellate Authority, but it is a case where the landlords bona fide require the premises and the findings of the Rent Controller in this behalf are wholly correct, which have been set aside in appeal on surmises and conjectures. It is no more disputed that the landlords do not own or occupy any other rented land in the urban area concerned, nor they have vacated any after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. This is the only rented land in the urban area concerned which is owned by the landlords which they require for their business bona fide.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenants is restored with costs. However, the tenants are allowed three months'' lime to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for three menths, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking, in writing that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlords.