Smt. Lajwanti vs Sukh Lal

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

Ram Piari was the original landlady and the owner of house No. 1462. Vide sale deed dated October 26, 1982, she sold the said house in favour of of Lajwanti, the Petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 22,500/-. It consisted of three rooms out of which two rooms are under the tenancy of Sukh Lal, tenant, at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- besides taxes etc. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that she required the said premises bona fide for her use and occupation as her family consisted of four adult members besides the married daughter and her children who kept on visiting and staying with her frequently. It was also alleged that the premises in her occupation were insufficient for her use and occupation. Moreover, the premises with her husband were on rent on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. She did not own or occupy any other residential building in the urban area concerned, nor she had vacated any such building after the commencement of the Rent Law. In the written statement, the tenant controverted the said allegations and pleaded that Lajwanti was not the owner, nor the landlady. He was a tenant on the said premises under Ram Piari. He further pleaded that house No. 1462 consisted of three rooms with verandah. One Sher Singh who was a tenant in one of the rooms and verandah had vacated the same and they were lying vacant for the last one year. He denied that the requirement of the landlady was bona fide as she had got other house also. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlady, it was admitted that the possession of one vacant room was handed over the her by the previous owner at the time of the sale and that the said room was in her possession and her family members since then. On trial, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion,-

Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that Petitioner requires the premises in dispute for her own personal use and occupation.

As a result, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and held that the tenant was not liable to be ejected from the premises, in question, on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

During the pendency of this revision petition, the landlady also moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3945-CII of 1986, whereby she placed on record her affidavit wherein it is deposed that due to sudden heart attack, her son-in-law had died On July 25, 1986, at the young age of 36 years leaving her daughter along with four children dependent upon her and her husband. It is further deposed therein that due to this tragic subsequent event, her need to occupy the premises, in dispute, has increased many-fold. The widowed daughter and her four children have no other place to live except with her. Notice of this application was given to the counsel opposite, but no reply has been filed to the same.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that from the evidence on the record, it was amply proved that the requirement of the landlady was most bona fide as at present, she was living with her husband who is occupying the rented premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- whereas she is only getting Rs. 10/- per month as rent from the demised premises. The learned Counsel further contended that in any case, the said house was in occupation of her husband as a tenant and she was there at sufferance and, therefore, she could not be said to be in occupation of the rented premises in her own right. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Naranjan Dass Sood v. Smt. Vidya Wati 1979 (1) RCR. 547. The learned Counsel also argued that in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi (1980) 82 P. L. R. 613, which was subsequently approved by the Full Bench of this Court in Romesh Kumar v. Atma Devi (1985) 87 P.L.R. 751(F.B), it was nowhere held that under no circumstances, the landlord will be entitled to eject the tenant if he was in occupation of the rented premises. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wrong, illegal and improper. Reliance in this behalf was placed by the learned Counsel on Om Parkash v. Prem Chand Aggarwal 1980 (2) Rent C. J. 739. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel, in view of the subsequent event because of the death of her son-in-law the requirement of the landlady to occupy the premises has further increased.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner.

The approach of the Appellate Authority is wholly wrong and illegal. It is in evidence that at present Lajwanti, landlady, was residing in house No. 3461, which consists of three rooms and was under the tenancy of her husband. House No. 1462 of which the demised premises are a part, also consists of three rooms. It is also in evidence and not disputed that the husband of the landlady is paying Rs. 150/- per month as rent for the house in their possession whereas the landlady is only getting Rs. 10/- per month as rent from the tenant. This being the factual position, it has been wrongly observed by the Appellate Authority that,-

Taking into consideration that Lajwanti landlord has got at least 3 rooms if not 4, in the tenanted house No. 346, and one room and a verandah in house No. 1462, in my opinion, it could not be said that the existing accommodation with the landlord Shrimati Lajwanti was insufficient for her requirement and for the requirement of her family members.

This approach, as observed earlier, is wholly wrong and misconceived. The landlady is to live in one house and therefore, the occupation of one room in the demised premises and the accommodation at present with her husband could not be tragged together. Moreover, it is not disputed that her husband was a tenant in house No. 3461 and that she was living there as a licensee and not in her own right. In any case, since her husband was paying Rs. 150/- per month as rent whereas the landlady was getting Rs. 10/- per month as rent from the tenant, her requirement to occupy the demised premises is most bona fide. In Om Parkash''s case (supra) the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh''s case (supra), was also noticed and it was observed,

What has been ruled in that decision is that no order of ejectment can be passed on the application of a landlord when he is in occupation of another residential building in the same urban area as a tenant without showing anything more. One of the exceptions to this rule as recognised in M/s Sant Ram Des Raj v. Karam Chand, can be where the landlord seeks ejectment on the ground that the tenanted premises in his possession were insufficient for his needs. As to whether there can be any other exception it was observed, it is difficult to envisage hypothetically any other exception to the aforesaid provision and whenever suitable facts are brought out, such a question may arise for consideration " It is, therefore, evident that no absolute rule was laid down and the landlord who was in possession of a tenanted premises was not debarred from seeking ejectment from the premises owned by him if a case is made out that he has a sufficient cause to vacate the premises on lease with him.

On facts, it was found therein that the total income of the landlord was Rs. 255/- per month and, therefore, he found it difficult to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 65/- after the birth of two children. Thus, it was held,-

On these facts, there can be no two opinions that the landlord has sufficient cause to vacate the premises on lease with him and to get the two rooms of his house vacated for his personal occupation.

Not only that, even in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Romesh Kumar''s case (supra), it was observed,-

The learned Counsel then urged that the decision in Karnail Singh''s case (supra) may be explained to the extent that the landlord would be entitled to seek ejectment of the tennat in spite of the fact that he is occupying another residential building as lessee if he has sufficient cause to vacate the building in his occupation or the same is not sufficient/suitable for his needs. There is hardly any need to do so because what was held in Karnail Singh''s case (supra), was only that the landlord would not be entitled to claim eviction of the tenant simply on the ground that he was in occupation of the premises in the same urban area as tenant without alleging and proving anything more (underlining supplied). The Bench, therefore, never held that the landlord occupying another premises in the urban area concerned as tenant would not be entitled to eject his own tenant if there is sufficient cause for him to vacate the premises in his occupation or the same are not sufficient/suitable for his needs. All the same we do agree with the learned Counsel for the Respondent that there is no absolute bar for a landlord to seek ejectment of a tenant from his own house if he is occupying another premises in the same urban area as lessee and the landlord would be entitled to claim ejectment of his tenant if the premises in his occupation are not sufficient/suitable for his needs or he has some other reasonable cause to vacate the same. Subject to this observation, the rule laid down in Karnail Singh''s case (supra) is affirmed.

It is quite evident that there can be someother reasonable cause to vacate the premises on rent with a landlord when he seeks the ejectment of his tenant on the ground of his bona fide requirement. One of the grounds may be that he is paying higher rent than the nominal rent which he is getting for his premises from the tenant, as held in Om Parkash''s case (supra). Thus, it itself provides the ground to the landlady to seek the ejectment of the tenant when her husband is paying Rs. 150/- per month as the rent while she is getting only | Rs. 10/- per month as rent from the tenant.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the subsequent event brought on the record in this Court by way of the affidavit of Lajwanti, Petitioner, her bona fide requirement to occupy the demised premises is amply proved and the view taken by the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly illegal and misconceived and, thus, the finding arrived at by it is vitiated whereas the learned Rent Controller came to the right conclusion in this behalf.

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 ejectment of the tenant is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three month''s time to vacate the premises ; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and an undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period the premises would be vacated and the vacant possession would be handed over to the landlady, are given before the Rent Controller within one month from today and the monthly rent for the said period is paid in advance by the tenth of every month.