Smt. Sumitra Devi vs Smt. Paritam Kaur

J.V. Gupta, J.—The petitioner landlady has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ambala, dated September 3, 1931, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant-respondent was set aside and the application of the landlady far the eviction of the tenant was dismissed.

The landlady sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised property situated in Chhachhrauli, on the grounds that she required the same for her bona fide occupation and that the respondent had materially impaired the value and utility of the same. The tenant denied the allegations in the written statement and on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether the applicant bona fide requires the demised premises for her own use and occupation, as alleged ?

Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the property in dispute, and if so, to what extent and its effect ?

Relief.

The Rent Controller found these issues in favour of the landlady and consequently passed the order of ejectment against the tenant In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on both the issues and as a result, set aside the order of eviction and dismissed the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has come up in revision to this Court.

The main controversy between the parties in this revision petition is on issue No. 1, i.e, whether the landlady bona fide requires the premises, in dispute, for her own use and occupation or not The Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the Rent Controller under this issue on the ground that the petitioner herself did not step into the witness box and the evidence of Shri Harkesh Ram, Advocate, who appeared as A W. 1 and was the special attorney of Shrimati Sumitra Devi, landlady, was rejected on the ground that as regards the personal necessity, it was only the landlady who herself could depose to that effect and nobody else. Reliance in this respect was placed on Nand Lal Goverdhan Dass and Company v. Shrimati Samrathai Lila Chand Shah 1980 (2) R.C.R. 270. However, it has been held by this Court in Mrs. Rajinder Pal Kaur v. Daljit Singh 1981 (1) R.C.R. 203, that there is no requirement of law that the landlord must appear in the witness box himself to support his claim of personal necessity At the most, this may be a circumstance to be considered at the time of the appreciation of evidence. In view of the judgment of this Court in the above-said case, it could not be seriously contested on behalf of the tenant that the view taken by the Appellate Authority was sustainable.

Faced with this situation, the Learned Counsel for the tenant contended that in these circumstances, the case may be remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the matter afresh on merits as to the bona fide requirement of the landlady However, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to remand the case to the Appellate Authority to decide the matter afresh. The Rent Controller has discussed the entire evidence under issue No. 1 and after discussing the same exhaustively, has given a firm finding that the landlady required the premises, in question, for her own use and occupation. The evidence of the parties led on this point was also read out in this Court and I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the findings of the Rent Controller under issue No. 1. It is in the evidence of Harkesh Ram, Advocate, A. W. 1, special attorney of the landlady, who is a widow that she was liable to be ousted from the house in Ambala Cantonment where she was residing at the time of his making the statement and that she requires the demised premises for her own use and occupation. In any case there is no evidence on the record that the landlady owns any other residential building in the urban area concerned or she has vacated any such building without any sufficient cause after the commencement of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973. No meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the tenant to doubt the bona fides of the landlady in the present case. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that it has been amply proved on the record that the landlady bona fids requires the premises, in question, for her own use and occupation. In view of this finding, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller, directing the ejectment of the respondent, is restored with costs. However, she is allowed two months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears, if any, and the advance rent for two months is deposited with the Rent Controller within three weeks from today and she further undertakes to hand over the vacant possession of the premises, in dispute, after the expiry of the period of the said two months.