Surjit Kaur vs Narinder Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlady''s petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The landlady sought ejectment of the tenant Narinder Singh from half portion on the first floor of House No. 1043, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh,

which was let out to him initially at the rale of Rs. 100/- per month but was increased later on upto Rs. 150/- per month The ejectment was sought

on the ground that she bona fide required the house for her own use and occupation. It was pleaded that the house in which they were living at

Amritsar at present had been acquired by the Improvement Trust and they would be dispossessed therefrom at any time. Her two sons, namely

Jasbir Singh with four children, and Pritpal Singh with three children are living with her. Her third son is likely to be transferred to Chandigarh

whose luggage is still with them. She stated that she had taken out ejectment proceedings against the other tenants on the ground floor while the

other tenants on the first floor and the Barsati have promised to vacate their portions of their own. The tenant resisted the claim of the landlady. It

was pleaded that the petition has been lied to harass him. Both the sons at Amritsar are doing their business and they have no intention to shift to

Chandigarh. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlady has been pressurising the tenants for increasing the rent and she had doubled the

rent within a span of about 12 years. Thus she had failed to prove her bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation of the premises.

Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and thus

maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this petition in this Court.

An affidavit dated 13th October, 1985 was filed by the tenant Narinder Singh in which it was stated that about 4/5 months back, one tenant

namely Harinder Kaur had vacated the room on the top floor of the house and the landlady instead of occupying it herself has rented it out to Sh

Surinder Bhardwaj. It was also stated that another tenant Mohinder Pal Soni was occupying the adjoining portion of the first floor of the house and

the landlady forced him to increase the rent from Rs. 150/ to Rs. 200/- per month and the said tenant yielded to her threat and increased the rent

accordingly. An affidavit dated 10th February, 1985 has been filed on behalf of Sarbjit Singh, general attorney of the Petitioner landlady. It has

been admitted therein that the room at the top floor was vacated by the tenant and the same had been rented out to another tenant. However, it hat

been stated that it was not suitable for her as she being an old lady of about 80 years could not easily climb upto two heights of the stairs.

Moreover, in the absence of kitchen and bath room, the room was totally useless for the purpose of the Petitioner. As regards the increase of rent

of tenant Mohinder Pal Soni it was admitted that the rent was increased but according to the affidavit the increase was in accordance with the

original agreement between the parties and in any case, the said Mohinder Pal Soni had undertaken to vacate the premises on the request of the

Petitioner as and when she succeeds in getting the Respondent evicted Averment was also made therein in pari 3 thereof that the house is which

the landlady was residing at Amritsar has since been acquired, and the compensation has been paid to the owners. As such the landlady has no

option but to move in the building in dispute.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that once the bouse at Amritsar is acquired then the landlady has no option but to shift to

Chandigarh and occupy her own house. Thus argued the Learned Counsel, the need of the landlady was most bona fide and the findings arrived at

by the authorities below are based on surmises and conjectures.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this petition.

In support of the claim, only the landlady has appeared as her own witness. No other evidence was led by her. The most relevant evidence was

that of her sons who were residing at Amritsar as to whether they wanted to shift to Chandigarh or not on the acquisition of their house at Amritsar.

Both the Courts below have not accepted the statement of the landlady to prove her bona fide requirement. I do not find any impropriety or

illegality therein as to he interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The premises in dispute were let out originally at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month

and now the tenant was paying Rs. 150/- per month. Similarly in the case of Mohinder Pal Soni, tenant, the rent has been increased by the

landlady. It is also surprising that the top floor when vacated by Harinder Kaur was not occupied by her. Even if that was not itself sufficient for her

purpose, she should not have rented out the same, to show her bona fides when she was seeking ejectment of the other tenant as well. In this view

of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it will be open to the landlady to move fresh application as and

when there is any fresh cause of action.