Swatantar Kumar vs Kamal Dev Bawa and Others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The landlord Respondents sought eviction of the Petitioner from the house in dispute on two grounds, namely, non-payment of rent and personal bona fide need to occupy the premises. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 18.1.1986 returned findings against the landlords on both the grounds and the eviction application was dismissed. The learned Appellate Authority, however, vide judgment under revision recorded a finding to the effect that the rate of rent of the premises in dispute is Rs. 200/- per month as claimed by the landlords and not Rs. 50/- per month as contended by the tenant-Petitioner on the basis of which the arrears of rent were tendered on the date of hearing. However, the finding of the Rent Controller that the Respondents have not been able to establish bona fide need to occupy the premises was maintained. The eviction was, thus, ordered on the ground of short tender of rent made on the first date of hearing. This is how the tenant-Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

The arguments in the case were partly heard on 15.12.1987, when the learned Counsel for both the sides sought an adjournment stating that there is a likelihood of a compromise to be effected between the parties. An affidavit dated 28.11.1987 of Wing Commander Kamal Dev Bawa, one of the Respondents, has been filed, wherein he has stated that the Petitioner has vacated the house in dispute and has shifted with his family to a new house No. M. C. H. B. 1/516 Mohalla Garhi, Bahadurpur, Hoshiarpur, on the last Diwali, i. e. October 22, 1987, which house the Petitioner has purchased. A reply to this affidavit has also been filed by the tenant-Petitioner, wherein he has admitted that the fact that he has purchased the said house but he has stated that it is in a dilapidated condition and can accommodate only some of his family members. He, thus, states that he has not completely shifted from the house in dispute. It appears that at some stage the talks of a compromise between the parties failed. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Respondents, however, seriously contends that the Respondents are in bona fide need of the premises in dispute and the finding recorded to the contrary by the authorities below cannot be sustained. He has further pointed out there is no evidence on behalf of the Petitioner to negative the fact that Wing Commander Kama) Dev Bawa is due to retire from service in the near future. Thus, the bona fide need of the said Respondent is established. Mr. Sarin, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, very fairly conceded at the Bar that bona fide need of the said Respondent is established and the finding recorded by the Court below on this point cannot be sustained. He has made this concession keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has already purchased another house and shifted to the same with his family. I, therefore, reverse the finding of the learned Courts below on this point and hold that the Respondents are in bona fide need of the premises in dispute to occupy the same.

As regards the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority on the rate of rent, I am of the considered view that the same cannot be sustained. The learned Appellate Authority has simply gone by conjectures and has believed ipse dixit of the Respondents. The onus to prove the rate of rent lies on the landlords. The mere fact that the tenant could not prove to the hilt that the rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month was not a ground to straightaway accept, the claim of the landlords that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month. There is in fact no cogent evidence worth the name on the record that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month. I, therefore, reverse the finding of the learned Appellate Authority on this point and restore the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller.

However, in view of the fact that the bona fide need of the Respondents for personal occupation of the premises in dispute has been established, I maintain the order of eviction passed by the learned Appellate Authority against the Petitioner and dismiss the present revision petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I allow him two months'' time to vacate the premises in dispute and to deliver its vacant possession to the Respondents on the condition that he deposits the entire amount of arrears of rent along with the future rent for two months in the Court of the Rent Controller payable to the Respondents within one month from today. On his failure to do so, the Respondents shall be entitled to take out execution and recover the possession of the premises forthwith.