Tek Chand vs Wadhawa Ram

J.V. Gupta, J.—The tenant-petitioner has filed this petition against the order of the appellate authority, Ferozepore, dated 31st Nov. 1973, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application has been set aside and the ejectment order has been passed.

Wadhawa Ram is the landlord of the premises in dispute and according to him, it were let out to Tek Chand on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. The ejectment was claimed on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent for the period from 1st February, 1972 to 31st December, 1973, at the rate of Rs. 120/- per mensem amounting to Rs. 2760/- and secondly that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation Tek Chand, tenant, contested the application, inter alia pleading that the rate of rent was Rs. 30/- per mensem and that he had already paid rent upto October 31, 1973. In order to avoid ejectment, he deposited arrears of rent for the period claimed at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month, on the first date of hearing. He denied the bona-fide requirement of the landlord of the premises in dispute. The Rent controller framed the following issues:-

Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the house in question on the grounds mentioned in para No. 2 of the application?

2 Whether a valid notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was served upon the respondent terminating his tenancy, if not to what effect?

What is the rate of rent between the parties?

The application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, as it came to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 30/- per mensem and not Rs. 120/- Thus, the tender of arrears of rent made along with interest and costs was held to be valid. No finding was given by the Rent Controller on the bona fide requirement of the landlord on the ground that he did not plead that he had no other residential house in Fazilka City and that he did not vacate any house after coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, without reasonable cause In appeal, the landlord moved an application for the amendment of the ejectment application so as to implead the necessary ingredients on which the learned Rent Controller had found against him. This application was allowed by the Appellate Authority, and, consequently, an additional issue was framed and the case was sent to the Rent Controller for further enquiry. As regards the finding of the Rent Controller that the rent of the premises was Rs. 0/- per month and not Rs. 120/- per month as claimed by the landlord the same was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. On the question of personal necessity, it was found that the landlord was not owning any residential house in the urban area concerned nor had he vacated any such house after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and he bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment of the tenant was ordered on this ground. Feeling aggrieved against this, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the evidence of the landlord has been disbelieved by both the Authorities below on the question of rate of rent of the premises in dispute. Since the landlord was not coming with clean hands, his bona fide requirement for his own use and occupation is to be seen in that background. He further submitted that there is no change in the circumstances after the premises were rented out to the tenant-petitioner in the year 1966 and then again in the year 1972, when the rent was said to have been increased by the landlord. The present application was filed in the year 1974 and during this period of two years, no change has taken place as to make his requirement to be a bona fide one. In support of this contention, he cited Mohan Lal Jain v. Mohan Lal son of Walaiti Ram 1973 R.C.R. 380, R.K. Jain v. Khazan Singh (1980)82 P.L.R. 142, and Ram Lal Sunda v. Santosh Kumari Sood (1980) 82 P.L.R. 459, for the proposition that it is not the mere wish of the landlord but it is the real need which is to be seen on the facts and circumstances of each case.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord contended that the appellate authority has rightly held that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for his own use and it being a finding of fact should not be interfered with in this revision petition.

I have heard the parties at a great length. The landlord has been found to be false when he claimed the rent at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month and both the Courts have found that the rent was Rs. 30/- per month for the premises in dispute, and not Rs. 120/- as claimed by the landlord. Under these circumstances, it is quite clear that the landlord is not coming to the Court with clean hands. Of course, there could be a genuine dispute for the rate of rent between the parties, but there is a vast difference between the rent claimed by both the parties respectively. From this it is quite evident that the landlord wanted to use this pressure tactics by claiming enhanced excessive rent for the ejectment of his tenant. Apart from that, it is in the statement of the landlord himself who has appeared as A.W. 5 that he rented out these premises at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month on 1st January, 1972 and as observed earlier, the present application for ejectment was filed on 3rd January, 1974. Nothing has been brought on the record to show the change in the circumstances within this short period of two years. The Appellate Authority has given undue importance to the fact that the landlord being a political person expects guests and would need some accommodation to accommodate them, but this factor was already there when the premises were rented out to the tenant in the year 1972 according to the landlord himself. He was an Ex. M.L.A. and a leader of a political party since long. Under these circumstances, this by itself was not a new circumstances which could be of much importance. The other ground which has prevailed with the Appellate Authority is that the accommodation at present with the landlord consists of three rooms on the ground floor and one Chobara. Apart from that there is one deohri (Passage) and one room wherein dry fooder is kept. According to the learned Appellate Authority, this accomodation with him cannot be considered to be adequate when the total number of his family members is four, i.e. his wife and two sons. As observed earlier, the position was the same in the year 1972 when the premises were rented out again by the landlord to the tenant. This need of the landlord on which the case has been founded has not come into existence within this period of two years. It cannot be disputed that the bona fide requirement of the landlord is to be seen at the time when the application for ejectment was filed. Of course, if there is any change in the circumstances during the pendency of the proceedings, the same may be looked into in a given case. In the present case nothing has been brought on the record as to the change of any circumstances during the pendency of there proceedings. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the present case, including the false claim of rent made by the landlord it does raise a suspicion in the, mind of the Court so far his bona-fide requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation is concerned. The approach of the Appellate Authority in this respect has been wrong and illegal, it is not the mere wish of the landlord who may seek the ejectment of his tenant, but his bonafide need and requirement that is to be judged by the Authorities under the Act on the facts and circumstances of each case.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds, the order of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller dismissing the application for ejectment is restored with costs.