Tarlok Chand vs Swaran Kaur and Others

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but the eviction order was passed in appeal.

Land lady Shrimati Swaran Kaur sought the ejectment of her tenant inter alia on the ground that he was in arrears of rent from January 1, 1983, to September 30, 1986 The premises were required foe her personal use and that she had no other house in the urban area concerned and had'' not vacated any house after coming into operation of the rent Act. In the written statement, it was pleaded that only one room without water and electricity was rented out to him on January 1, 1983 and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 40/-. The demised premises were being used for manufacturing locks and keys and as such they could not be got vacated for personal.

On the first date of hearing, tenant deposited the arrears of tent at the rate Rs. 40/-par months. The learned Rent Controller found that the tender made was valid. However, on the question of personal necessity, it was held that the landlady did not require the premises for her own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the tender made at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month was invalid as the rent was Rs. 60/- par month though the landlady claimed it at the rate of Rs. 350/-per month. Since the tenant only paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per months the tender was invalid, during the appeal, the landlady moved an application under Order V Rule 17. Code of Civil Procedure, to plead that during; the pendency of the appeal, her husband had died on June 16 1987. He was residing in rented small Government accommodation and now she will have to shift to his village and occupy the demised premises Notice of the application was given to the tenant bat no reply was filed.- However. the appellate authority found that after the death of her husband, the house had been allotted to her son and, therefore, there was no bonafide requirement. However, in view of the short tender, the eviction order was Passed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the ejectment application, the landlady claimed Rs. 350/- per month as the tent which the failed to prove rather when she came in the witness: box she stated, that the rent was Rs. 60/- per month. Thus, argued the learned counsel, according to the claim set up by her in ejectment application, the tender could not be said to be invalid in any.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this Petition.

On the appreciation of the entire evidence particularly the laments mark A, it has been found as a fact that the rent was Rs. 60 per month and not Rs. 40/- alleged by the tenant Admittedly the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. Once it is found that the rent was Rs. 60/- per month, then obviously, the tender made was invalid and the tenant was liable to be ejected on that ground alone Apart from the above, during the pendency of the appeal, the husband of the landlady died on June 16, 1987. Even though no reply to the said application was filed, even if it may be assumed that after his death Government accommodation was allotted to her son, it was itself not sufficient to hold that she did not bona fide require the premises for her own use and occupation.

Under the circumstances, the revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent if any and an undertaking in writing, are deposited with the Rent Controller within month, that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession shall be handed over the landlady.