Smt. Shanti Devi vs M/s A.R. Chadha and others

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

The landlady sought the ejectment of her tenant Messrs A.R. Chadha and Company (Pvt Ltd, from shop cum flat No. 56, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh i.e. ground floor for shop and first and Barsati floor for residence The ejectment application was filed on September 9, 1982, on the ground that the tenant has sublet the premises to Respondents No. 2 and 3 and that the bono fide required the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation. It was pleaded that she was a widow and had two married sons, but her relations with her daughters in law were far From cordial and it had become very difficult for her to stay and pull on with them. It was also pleaded that she had no other accommodation in her occupation at Chandigarh nor she had vacated any such accomodation at Chandi-garh after the passing of the Rent Restriction Act. It was further pleaded that many of her relations had settled at Chandigarh and so she also wanted to settle at Chandigarh. In the written statement the said allegations were controverted and it was pleaded that the landlady was very old and was living with her sons at Ajmer where she had owned other property and it was not even convenient for her to stay at Chandigarh and so she had no necessity for the demised premises. As regards sub-letting, it was pleaded that from the very inception of the tenancy the said Respondents are occupying the premises in dispute as servants of the company and, therefore, the question of sub-letting did not arise The learned Rent Controller, on the question of persona) necessity, found that the landlady required the premises in dispute for her own bona fide use and occupation. However, the plea of sub-letting was negatived(sic). Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller en the question of personal necessity and maintained the finding en the question of sub-letting Ultimately, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same the landlady has filed this petition in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that from the evidence on the record, particularly the statement of the landlady P.W. 1 and Balwant Rai Advocate AW 2 with whom she was living at present at Hoshiarpur being her relation, it was amply proved that she bona fide required the premises and the learned Pent Controller rightly came to the conclusion in that respect, but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily, on surmises and conjectures. He also submitted that Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not the servants of the tenant company and, therefore, it was a clear case of subletting On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that there is no evidence on the record to prove that there are strained relations between her and her daughters in-law and that none of her sons has came forward to state that he was not ready to keep her with him. Moreover, according to the Learned Counsel, she was residing at Ajmer and not at Hoshiarpur. as stated by A.W. 2 Balwant Rai and in these circumstances it has been rightly held by the Appellate Authority that she has failed to prove her bona fide requirement. In support of this contention, he referreed to Lakshmi Devi v. Dr. Mela Ram 1982 (1) R. L. R.440. On the question of sub letting it was submitted that Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were the servants of the Company and were occupying the same since the very inception of the tenancy According to the Learned Counsel, the tenant was in occupation of the premises as such through these persons.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record. The landlady herself appeared in the witness box as P.W. land categorically stated that she was not in a position to live with her sons becuase of stained relations withtheir wives and at present she was living with A.W. 2 Balwant Rai, Advocate, Hoshiarpur, for the last 10/11 months. No meaningful cross examination was made to her in this respect. As a matter of fact, the whole cross-examination was directed on the question of sub-letting Balwant Raj, Advocate, appeared as A.W. 2 and he stated that for the last 9/ 0 months the landlady was living with him, but now it was difficult for him to keep her because his sons are not agreeable to serve her There was no rebuttal to his evidence produced by the tenant The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the said evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that the landlady required the premises in dispute for her bona fide use and occupation, but the said finding has been reserved in appeal on surmises and conjectures. According to the Appellate Authority, except for her own statement and the statement of Shri Balwant Rai, Advocate no reliable evidence has been produced to show that the requirement of the landlady was bona fide This approach is wholly misconceived. It was not necessary for the landlady to produce his sons in the witness box. Moreover, her statement was not shaken in cross examination and the Rent Controller rightly believed her statement and that of her witness A.W. 2 Balwant Rai, Advocate. The mere fact that there is a long distance between Ajmer where her sons are residing and Chandigarh was no ground to come to the conclusion that the requirement was not bono fide. The landlady was 58 years old when she made her statement in the year 1983 and in case she wants to come to reside in her own house at Chandigarh there was nothing wrong. The whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf as observed earlier was misconceived. The authority relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has absolutely no applicability on the facts of the case in hand. In that case, it was observed that nothing has been brought on the file to show that Lakshmi Devi cannot live separately in a separate apartment of the house of her husband built at Allahabad. There is no evidence in the present case that there was any separate apartment in the house occupied by her sons. In any case, it will be a question of fact in each case as to whether the requirement of the landlady is bona fide or not In the present case, the Rent Controller found that the requirement was bona fide but the same was reversed in appeal arbitrarily. It is not disputed that the landlady has no other accommodation in her occupation in the urban area concerned as to satisfy her requirement.

In view of this finding, on the question of sub-letting need not be gone into. In the circumstances, the petition succeeds, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises in dispute provided all the arrears of rent, if any and advance rent for three months is 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 landlady.