Smt. Harvinder Kaur Sabharwal vs Navneet Kaur

J.S. Khehar, J.—The petitioner impungs the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 1st March, 1999 whereby he had allowed respondent Navneet Kaur to lead additional evidence. Before the Rent Controller, respondent Navneet Kaur, as landlady of the demised premises, sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.

A Full Bench of this Court in Banke Ram v. Smi. Sarash Devi (1977) 79 P.L.R. 112 (F.B.), has identified two ingredients for establishing the claim of bona fide persona necessity. Firstly, the landlord must establish that he requires the premises for his personal use and occupation and secondly, the landlord must prove that he is not occupying any other property in the area nor has vacated any such building after the commencement of the Rerit Act. Both these ingredients must be Specifically pleaded in rent petition and must also be proved.

So far as the issue of pleadings is concerned, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the aforesaid two ingredients were duly pleaded by the landlady Navneet Kaur (respondent herein) in the rent petition filed by her to seek eviction of petitioner from the demised premises.

Although there is no lacuna in the pleadings, lacuna arose at the time of adducing evidence. The landlady Navneet Kaur when examined as P.W. 1 did not expressly make any statement to the effect that her son Inderjit Singh was neither occupying any other property in the area of Chandigarh nor he had vacated any such building after the commencement of the Rent Act. The aforesaid lacuna was now being sought to be filled up by filing an application, seeking one of the two alternative reliefs; the respondent-landlady sought permission to be allowed to stand in the witness box again as to be able to depose on the factual aspect of her son neither occupying any other property in the area of Chandigarh nor having vacated any such building after the Rent Act commenced to be applicable at Chandigarh. In the alternative she sought permission to be allowed to bring in additional evidence by examining her son Inderjit Singh for the aforesaid purpose.

The Rent Controller vide order dated 1st March, 1999 permitted the respondent-landlady Navneet Kaur to examine her son Inderjeet Singh in furtherance of the aforesaid application filed by her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent-landlady cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna left in the evidence, and since an essential ingredient to establish bona fide ftersonal necessity had hot been proved by the landlady, the rent petition was bound to fail. He, therefore, challenged the impugned order on the premises that it permitted the respondent-landlady to fill up a lacuna at this fag end of the trial.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlady has cited Swaran Singh v. Inderjit 1977(2) R L.R. 37 wherein this Court had occasion to deal with an identical situation as in the instant case. In the aforesaid case, in the pleadings the two ingredients for seeking eviction OH the basis of personal bona fide requirement had been Incorporated. However, during the course of recording of evidence, the said ingredients were not proved. Be that as it may, when the revision petition was presented to this Court, the same was remanded to the Court of Rent Controller with the direction to afford an opportunity to the land lord to lead evidence so as to establish the essential ingredients of bona fide personal necessity as laid down in Banke Ram''s case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondent-landlady submits that in the present ease instead of having the matter remanded from this Court, the respondent-landlady had herself realised the shortfall in the evidence and had accordingly moved an application wherein she sought permission to recall herself as witness, or to lead additional evidence by producing her son Inderjeet Singh in order to prove one of the essential ingredients for establishing her claim for personal bona fide requirement. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, it would be wholly unfair and unjust to refuse a relief claimed at an earlier stage which could be validly granted at a later stage.

The decision rendered by this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlady is expressly on the point in controversy between the parties. This court had allowed the landlord similarly situated as the respondent-landlady to adduce evidence with regard to one of the essential ingredients to establish his case for bona fide personal necessity at the revisional stage.

In the aforesaid view in the matter, In find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.