Surjit Singh vs Balbir Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Kent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

2 The landlord Surjit Singh sought the ejectment of his tenant Balbir Singh from the demised premises consisting of two rooms and a courtyard which was rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- in June, 1979. The ejectment application was filed in the year 1982 inter alia on the ground that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. According to the averments made in the ejectment application, his wife was a chronic patient and he needed the premises for her treatment at Sangrur where he was at present living in village Ubhawal; Tehsil and District Sangrur He further, stated that he had cot vacated any other, premises in the urban area concerned, nor he was in occupation of any other building. The tenant controverted the said allegation and pleaded that he did not require the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that:

However, on perusal of the evidence led by the parties and consideration thereof, I find that the applicant has successfully been able to prove the ground. It has been stated by all the witnesses examined by the applicant, namely, Bhag Singh A W.1: Gurdial Singh. A.W 2 Bachan Singh A.W 3 and Surjit Singh, applicant, A.W.7 that Ishar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh is sick for the last 10/12 years. Earlier she was admitted in the C.M.C. Ludhiana and thereafter she has been getting treatment from Patiala and now the applicant wants her shifted to Sangrur in order to get her medically examined.

The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord was then residing at village Ubhawal and the demised premises were situated in Sangrur and that the necessity of the landlord regarding the requirement of the house, in dispute, was quite natural. According to him, it was well settled that the landlord is best judge of his needs. Consequently, the eviction order was passed In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority took the view that the nature of the disease from which Shrimati Ishar Kaur suffered, does not require her check up regularly and her stay at Sangrur as she was suffering only from skin disease in the year 1967 and from some knee-pain at the time of filing of the ejectment application, which according to it, was not sufficient to seek the tenant''s ejectment. According to the Appellate Authority, the landlord''s wife could get treatment while staying at her home and getting medicines administered herself. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order was set aside.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that once it was found that the wife of the landlord was suffering from skin disease as well as from the knee-pain while filing the ejectment application, the need of the landlord was most bona fide as found by the Rent Controller and that it was not for the Appellate Authority to suggest that she can be got treated while staying at her home and getting medicines administered to herself This according to the learned Counsel was not within the purview of the Appellate Authority. Moreover, argued (he learned Counsel, the tendency to shift from the villages to the cities is very common and if the landlord owns house in the city and wants to shift there, his requirement was most bona fide ; particularly when there is no suggestion put up by the tenant that the ejectment was being sought for any ulterior motives or the ejectment application itself was not bona fide In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Smt Sheila Shamsher Singh v. Ravinder Kumar Nagpal 1985 (1) R. C. J. 13.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenant-Respondent submitted that there was no cogent evidence on the record to prove that the wife was suffering from any disease at the time when the ejectment application was filed. According to the learned Counsel, Surjit Singh, landlord, admitted as A.W.7, that his wife had recovered from the illness when the tenant was inducted in the year 1979. Moreover, village Ubhawal where the landlord was staying then is on the roadside and the bus service is very common there. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the requirement of the landlord could not be said to be bona fide as found by the Appellate Authority.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that once it is found that the wife of the landlord was suffering from skin-disease at well as from knee-pain, the desire of the landlord to shift from the village to the city was most reasonable. Nothing has been suggested to him in his cross-examination that his requirement was actuated by any ulterior motives. It is no more disputed that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned, nor be has vacated any. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the learned Rent Controller rightly concluded that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. The said finding has been reversed in appeal on surmises and conjectures and illegally and improperly. It was not for the Appellate Authority to suggest that the wife of the landlord can get treatment while staying at her home in the village and get medicines administered to herself. This is for the landlord to see his convenience as to where it will be more appropriate for him to get the treatment of his ailing wife In any case, as observed earlier, there was no suggestion that the ejectment application was actuated by an ulterior motive.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent if any, along with the advance rent for three months, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing after the expiry of the said period vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord.