Surinder Kumar and another vs Om Parkash

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

House No. E--53 as shown in the site plan Exhibit A. 5 belonged to Lachhman Dass. Both the Petitioners and the Respondents were tenants therein under Lachhman Dass. Lachhman Dass sold the entire house in dispute to the Petitioners, Surinder Kumar and Smt. Jiwan Lata, for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- vide sale-deed Exhibit A. 1. The Petitioners filed the ejectment application for eviction of their tenant Om Parkash on September 1, 1982 on the grounds that they required the demised premises, which is a portion of their house, for their personal necessity. It was also pleaded that the entire house has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

In the reply filed on behalf of the tenant he pleaded that Lachhman Dass had agreed to sell the house in dispute to him vide agreement dated 12-11-1980 and that he had already filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement and for getting declaration that that sale-deed executed by Lachhman Dass in favour of the Petitioners is null and void. He also denied the other allegations of the Petitioners. It may be stated here that the said suit filed by the tenant had been dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal is stated to be pending before the District Judge, Jalandhar.

The learned Rent Controller negatived the plea of the tenant and came to the conclusion that it stands admitted that the Petitioners are in possession of only two rooms in the entire house No. NE 153 of which the tenancy in dispute is a part. It also stands admitted that family of Petitioner No. 1 is comprised of four members and that of Petitioner No. 2 of nine members. In view of these findings it was held that the landlord bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation. As regards the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the Rent Controller, held the age of the building in dispute between 60 to 100 years. It is made of mud mortar and that one of its walls has fallen down and the wooden ballas of the roof are eaten by white ants. Therefore, the building in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As a result of these findings, eviction order was passed on September 22, 1984. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlords have not been able to show that the property is bonafide required by them for their personal requirements or that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation Consequently, eviction order was set aside vide impugned order dated October 25, 1986.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the bonafide requirments of the landlords are amply proved on the record. The house which is said to be in occupation of the father of Surinder Kumar landlord is on rent with him and consists of one room only. They purchased the present building as they were already occupaying a portion thereof as tenants which is in front of the house occupied by his father Ram Lubhaya. According to the learned Counsel the whole approach of the Appellate Authority was wrong, illegal and misconceived, whereas the learned Rent Controller lightly found that keeping in view the number of the family members the requirement of the landlords was most bonafide. On the other band, learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that both the grounds of bonafide requirement and the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation could not be pleaded simultaneously. According to the learned Counsel if the premises nave become unsafe and unfit for human habitation the landlords should have sought ejectment of other tenants as well who are in occupation of other portions. Since no such application has been made against them the present application was not bonafide. Even the personal requirement of the landlords was not established. Thus argued the learned Counsel the view taken by the Appellate Authority in this behalf should not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the relevent evidence on record. I find that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived According to the Appellate Authority no tenant was produced to say that he had so promised to vacate the premises whereas the tenant had produced two tenants namely Jai Chand RW1 and Ganga Charan RW2 who stated that they had not made any promise with Surinder Kumar to vacate the premises. As observed earlier, this approach was wholly misconceived. The landlord are seeking ejectment of the tenant for their personal requirement. As a matter of fact they purchased the house for the said purpose in order to live comfortably therein since they were already occupying a portion thereof as tenants. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case there was nothing on record to reverse the finding of the learned Rent Controller which was well considered to come to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlords was most bonafide. The Rent Controller has categorically found that the tenant has failed to bring any evidence on the record that the properties mentioned in the written statement ate belonging to the landlords. Petitioner Surinder Kumar and the other witnesses examined by him have clearly stated that the Petitioners are not in possession of any other house except the house in dispute. Thus taking into consideration the number of the family members, the land lords have amply proved on the record their bonafide requirement. Consequently, this petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored with costs.

However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, alongwith advance rent of 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 of the premises will be handed over to the landlords.