Sohan Lal Kataria vs Ram Lal Dua

M.S. Liberhan, J.—The short question which requires consideration in this revision petition is whether the landlord needed the demised premises for his own occupation.

The landlord sought ejectment of the Petitioner-tenant claiming the demised premises consisting of two bed rooms and drawing-cum-dining room on the ground floor and one room at the first floor was bonafide needed for his own occupation, as he was occupying only one bed room at the first floor of a two-room house in Ambala Cantt with his son and his family and he was 74 years old while his wife was of 72 years, of age suffering from gout, obesity, backache, gastric trouble and sciatica pain etc. It was difficult for her to climb upstairs. The wife of the landlord needed help to go to the second floor for her daily needs like going to bathroom and latrine etc. Under the doctor''s advice she had been advised not to climb the stairs. They were getting themselves treated at Chandigarh for their ailments and were likely to get better treatment at Chandigarh. The accommodation with him in the house at Ambala Cantt was claimed to be Inadequate and insufficient as the same consisted of two rooms only and its occupants were the landlord, his wife his married son, daughter-in-law, two grand sons and one grand daughter residing together. The landlord had three married daughters and three other married sons who were living at different stations but on their frequent visits to him had to stay with him at Ambala. In view of this shortage of accommodation, the premises in dispute was needed for his own occupation.

The tenant though controverted the allegations but his only defence it appears was that the demand of the premises in dispute for own occupation of the landlord was malafide inasmuch as the landlord''s intention was only to increase the rent which is obvious from the fact that the premises in dispute was rented out in July 1973, at a monthly rent of Rs. 375/-. In April, 1974, the rent was increased to Rs. 400/- and in December, 1980, it was increased to Rs. 500/- per month. Now the landlord wanted rent at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. Since the tenant refused to meet the demand of the landlord to increase the rent, the present ejectment petition was filed. It was further contended that the landlord wanted to sell the premises in dispute at a higher price after getting it vacated.

The Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate authority after appraising the evidence came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute are required by the Respondent-landlord bonafidely for his own occupation. It was found that the version set up with respect to the demand for increase of rent as well as the sale, is a made up story in defence. The Courts below referred to each and every evidence oral as well as documentary on record. Nothing has been pointed out in the coarse of arguments how the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is improper. Not even a single reason has been given on the basis of which different view can be taken than the one taken by the authorities below. The authorities below have rightly and for cogent reasons believed the statements of P. W. 1 to P. W. 7. It has not been shown why Dr. Ajit Singh who has corroborated the statement of landlord with respect to his health would support the landlord''s version. Even otherwise also it is common experience that at the advanced age of the Petitioner who was of 74 years in 1983 when the petition was filed, it becomes difficult for one to climb the stairs, exceptions apart.

The only contention half heartedly raised during the course of arguments is that since the rent has been increased from Rs. 375/- to Rs. 500/- during the period 1973 to 1980. it should be presumed that in 1983 when the ejectment was sought the only object of the landlord was to increase the rent. It is further contended that there was no change of circumstances from 1973 to 1983 which forced the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant.

I find no substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. No such assumption can be made. When the landlord appeared in the witness box nothing was elicited from him with respect to the change of circumstances. Even otherwise, change of circumstances is obvious i.e. the advance age and need to live comfortably on 1st floor of the house and the increased family obligations towards married children. In the prevailing circumstances, as it has come on record i.e. with respect to the large number of family members, married sons and daughters who wish to come to see their ailing parents, have no accommodation to stay on their visits is a sufficient ground to hold that the landlord genuinely needed the premises in dispute for his ownuse and occupation. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is further corroborated by the fact that the tenant did not appear in the witness-box, rather his son has appeared as a witness to rebut the claim of the landlord.

It has been brought to my notice in the course of arguments by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the tenant is an affluent person running jeweller''s business at Chandigarh and has his own spacious three storeyed house in Sector 32, Chandigarh. The object of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is to protect the needy tenants and not to unduly enrich the tenant at the cost of the landlord

In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the fact that the tenant has been able to resist the genuine and bonafide claim of the landlord since 1983, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 1000/-. The request for granting time to vacate the premises is declined inasmuch as the tenant is stated to be already in occupation of a spacious house in Chandigarh for his use in his own right.