Sohan Singh vs Hari Singh

J.M. Tandon, J.—Sohan Singh Petitioner is in occupation of a room and kitchen in H. No. 805 in Prem Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, which is owned by Hart Singh Respondent. In February, 1975, the Respondent filed an ejectment application against the Petitioner on the grounds of non payment of rent, personal requirement and the Respondent having been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood.

The Petitioner contested the ejectment application. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application of the Respondent vide order dated 19th March, 1980. The Respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12th September, 1980. The Appellate Authority has held that the Petitioner has been guilty of misconduct causing nuisance to those living in the neighbourhood. The Petitioner has been ordered to be evicted on this ground u/s 13(2)(iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short, the Act). The Petitioner had assailed the order of the Appellate Authority in the present revision.

The sole point for consideration in the present revision is whether the Petitioner is liable to be evicted u/s 13(2)(iv) of the Act. AW Sewa Singh appeared at a witness of the Respondent and he stated that he was residing in a part of the horse of the Respondent. The Petitioner is a bad man. He is a nuisance to those living in the neighbourhood inasmuch as he hurls abuses under the influence of liquor. The drivers visit his house and take liquor. A Panchayat was convened on 4th October, 1974 consisting of the people living in the neighbourhood. The Panchayat decided that the Petitioner should vacate the house but he refused to abide by this decision. In his cross-examination, Sewa Singh stated that the Petitioner was living in the house of the Respondent for the last 11 or 12 years. The Respondent wants to get the house vacated and there is no other dispute between them. AW Kehar Singh is another witness of the Respondent. He is also a tenant in the house of the Respondent. He stated that the Petitioner hurls abuses under the influence of liquor. He does not behave properly in spite of requests from those living in the neighbourhood A Panchayat was convened on 4th October, 1974 but he did not abide by the decision of the Panchayat In his cross-examination, the witness stated that the Respondent has a wife and children, including young daughters The Respondent also appeared as a witness and stated that he wants to get the house in occupation of the Petitioner vacated. The Petitioner is always in a mood to fight when he approaches him for the rent A report was made to the police about him and proceedings u/s 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure, were initiated. He was bound down for six months.

The Petitioner, on the other hand, produced RW Bashir Ahmad who stated that the Petitioner is a good man and so is the Respondent. The Petitioner repairs water pumps in his cross-examination he stated that he did not know if the proceedings u/s 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure, had been initiated against the Petitioner at the instance of the Respondent RW Harcharan Dass also stated the Petitioner is a decent man. The Petitioner himself appeared as a witness and stated that his wife and four children, including two young daughters, live with him in the house of the Respondent. He does not take liquor in the house nor does he quarrel with others. The proceedings u/s 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure., were got initiated against him for getting the house vacated but he was discharged.

It is from this evidence that we have to find out if the respondent has been able to make out a case for the ejectment of the Respondent u/s 13(2)(iv) of the Act or not. It is admitted that the proceedings u/s 107/151, Cr. P. C, were initiated against the Petitioner by the police at the instance of the Respondent. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner was bound down for six months whereas the Petitioner has stated that he was discharged. A copy of the order passed in these proceedings has not been placed on the file. So, it difficult to hold that the Petitioner was bound down in proceedings u/s 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure. AWs. Sewa Singh and Kehar Singh have stated that the Petitioner is in the habit of taking liquor and under the influence thereof causes a nuisance and hurls abuses RWs Bashir Ahmad and Harcharan Dass have deposed that the behaviour of the Petitioner is decent. It is not disputed that the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner was not reported to the Police. In the absence of any complaint to the authorities concerned against the Petitioner it would he wrong to infer that he had been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupiers of buildings in the neighbourhood. The Appellate Authority has erred in placing implicit reliance on the bald statements of AWs Sewa Singh and Kehar Singh in recording a finding against the Petitioner especially when their statements have been contradicted by RWs Bashir Ahmad and Harcharan Dass. The finding of the Appellate Authority that the Petitioner is liable to be ejected u/s 13(2) (iv) of the Act cannot be sustained.

In the result, revision is allowed, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 12th September, 1980 is set aside and that of the Rent Controller restored. No order as to costs.