Smt. Shanti Devi and another vs The Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. and another

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

Shrimati Shanti Devi and her husband Prem Chand, filed the ejectment application on May 11, 1981, seeking ejectment of the tenant M/s. Amrit Banaspati Company and Suresh Aggarwal from the demised premises on the ground that the house, in dispute, was required by Shanti Devi, Petitioner, for her personal residence and occupation along with her son who was studying in the Medical College. It was pleaded that the landlords were residing in unhyginic accommodation which was unsafe and insufficient and without modern amenities of sewarage etc. It was also pleaded that Kulwant Rai, brother of Shanti Devi was a chronic patient of asthama and wanted to reside with her along with his wife. In the written statement, the said allegations were controverted and it was pleaded that the accommodation in occupation of the landlords was sufficient to meet their requirements. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that since Shanti Devi had not come to the witness-box, her personal requirement for bona fide occupation was not proved. On that short ground alone, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority though did not agree with the said reasoning of the Rent Controller, yet observed that the landlords had been residing in the accommodation in their possession since the year 1953, without any difficulty and the surroundings thereto could not be stated to be such that it was difficult for the landlords to reside there. It was further observed that they could make a cattle shed and occupy the two rooms which were being used for tethering the cattle. Thus, it was held that they had failed to prove their bona fide requirement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, they have filed this revision petition in this Court.

During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority the landlords moved the application to the effect that Naresh Kumar son of the Petitioners had completed his Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Course in June, 1983. He had been awarded the degree. He was aged 241/2 years and was of a marriageable age. Therefore, they required separate accommodation for him. Though the reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the tenant, yet no affidavit in support thereof was filed whereas the landlords did file the affidavit dated September 12, 1983, supporting the allegations made in their application.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the whole approach of the authorities below was illegal, improper and mis-conceived. From the evidence on the record, the bona fide requirement of the landlords to occupy the demised premises has been amply proved. In any case, argued the learned Counsel, in view of the subsequent event that their son Naresh Kumar was of a marriageable age and had obtained the Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Course in June, 1983, they were entiled to eject their tenant for his separate residence. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the mere fact that the landlord wanted more accommodation to live comfortably was no ground to eject the tenant. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Mangat Ram v. Om Parkash 1983 (1) R, L. R. 414. The learned Counsel further submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, both the authorities below have found that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide and that being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in this revision petition.

1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

As observed earlier, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application on the ground that since Shanti Devi, landlady, had not appeared in the witness-box, the requirement of the landlords was not proved to be bona fide. Admittedly, this reasoning of the Rent Controller did not find favour with the Appellate Authority and it was righly observed by it-

This reasoning of the learned Rent Controller to my mind, is not sound.

As regards the finding of the Appellate Authority that the requirement of the landlords to occupy the premises, in question, is not bona fide, the whole approach is improper and illegal. The subsequent events brought on the record before it have not been considered The same were overlooked simply because there was no averment in the applicacation that the said son wanted to reside at Rajpura with the Petitioners. Not only that, the Appellate Authority as noticed earlier too, also observed that the landlords could make a cattle shed and could occupy the two rooms which were being used for tethering the cattle, which, are also wholly unwarranted. On behalf of the tenant one Surineet Sharma, Liaison Officer, appeared in the witness-box as R.W.1. According to him no son of the landlords was studying in any medical college. Not only that, he also stated that it was correct that the disputed premises were located in a good and healthy locality and they had got all the amenities, as the company had introduced the flush amenities there. Thus, from the evidence on the record, it could not be held that the landlords had failed to prove their bona fide requirement to occupy the premises, in dispute. Besides, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the landlords are entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant for the separate residence of their married son. Thus, the whole approach of the authorities below being illegal and improper, the findings arrived at are vitiated. From the evidence produced by the parties, it is amply proved that the landlords bona fide required the premises for their use and occupation and that the present accommodation in their occupation was not sufficient to meet their requirements.

Consequently, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by the authorities below are set aside. The ejectment application is allowed and eviction order is passed against the Respondents. However, they are allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for three month''s are deposited with the Rent Controller within a month with a further undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, the premises shall be vacated and the vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlord.