Tirlokinath vs Vinod Kumar

J.S. Narang, J.—The facts as divulged by the parties are that Shri Vinod Kumar is the owner and landlord of House No 3294 Sector 35-D, Chandigarh and that Shri Triloki Nath is the tenant on the ground floor The rent of the premises in question was settled at Rs 275/- per month and in the first instance he was inducted as a tenant in the year 1973 by Shri Yashpal Gupta The said rate of rent further suffered increase from time to time and the last rate settled was Rs 500/- per month

It is averred that the plot where the demised premises were constructed was purchased in the year 1971 by Shri Yashpal Gupta, father of the landlord-Petitioner The construction f the demised premises was completed in the year 1972 It is on account of "Family Settlement" dated March 15, 1993 Ex R13, Shri Vinod Kumar became the owner/landlord of the demised premises However, in pursuant to the said family settlement, the sale deed dated February 24, 1994, was duly executed by the parties concerned and the same was registered accordingly In pursuant thereto, the demised premises stood transferred to the name of Shri Vinod Kumar, the Petitioner-landlord, in the records of the Estate Office. Chandigarh It is averred that the demised premises consist of four rooms, one kitchen, one store and two toilets The family of the Petitioner land-lord consists of himself his wife, two daughters aged about 11 years and one and half years at the time of filing of the petition and now the said two daughters have grown in age and that the Petitioner-landlord and his wife have been blessed with a son during the pendency of the petition. The petition had been filed seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the demised premises are required for personal use and occupation.

The petition had been contested on the ground that the need of the Petitioner-landlord is not genuine as he is residing with his father in the house defined as House No. 578 Sector 20-A Chandigarh, as such, personal need of the Petitioner-landlord stands belied. It is further averred by the tenant that the modus operandi to get the house vacated is to sell the same at good prospective price by way of handing over vacant possession.

The issues had been struck and the parties led evidence respectively. The learned Rent Controller returned findings on the issues in favour of the landlord and returned a specific finding that the Petitioner-landlord is residing on the first floor of House No. 578 sector 21-A, Chandigarh, at the mercy of his brother and that he is not residing in the said house as a matter of right. Further it has been found as a matter of fact that the said house is a small house measuring 6/1/4 Marias and that the whole family, the father, mother, two brothers and their families and the family of the Petitioner-landlord found the said place insufficient for their requirement.

Aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal. The tenant had set up various pleas inclusive of the plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the ground that family settlement does not create any right in favour of the landlord to file and prosecute the petition for eviction against the tenant. Further the plea has been taken that the Petitioner-landlord is in occupation of the premises (noticed above) and that the plea that he is a tenant under his father/brother in pursuant to the said family settlement is nothing but a sham transaction set up only for the purpose to get the house vacated for the purpose of being sold by way of giving vacant possession to the prospective buyer.

It shall be appropriate to notice some of the facts which have been referred to by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-tenant and the said facts are that Shri Rakesh Gupta brother of Respondent-landlord had filed eviction petition against the Respondent-landlord in pursuant to the accomplishment of the enforcement of the family settlement. The said petition had been accepted vide order dated November 9, 1998 passed by the Rent Controller. The said judgment was contested by the Respondent-landlord by way of filing and appeal which was dismissed and still further C.R. No. 4310 of 1999 had been filed which was finally dismissed by V,S. Aggarwal, J. vide order dated November 3, 1999. A categoric direction had been given that in case the Respondent-landlord files an undertaking to vacate the premises in question within six months by handing over vacant possession to Shri Rakesh Kumar, the execution shall not be taken out till then. It is obvious that the Respondent-landlord was under pressure to vacate the premises and, therefore, the bona fides of the Respondent-landlord for seeking vacation of the demised premises from the Petitioner-tenant stood corroborated. However, the Petitioner-tenant doubted all these acts and facts brought on record and as a sequel thereto, an additional issue No. 2 (a) was framed which reads as under:

2(a) Whether the eviction proceedings against the Respondent by his brothers is collusive?OPR.

and that the case was remanded for recording of evidence of the parties on the said issue. The evidence was led and ultimately the finding was returned on the issue in favour of the Respondent-landlord. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner-tenant.

Aggrieved of this, the Petitioner-tenant has filed the present petition.

It has been argued by Shri Arun Jain, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner (tenant) that the perusal of the evidence and the recitals of the family settlement makes one reach a safe conclusion that the family settlement was nothing but a stooge set up to seek vacation of the demised premises and resultantly support the ground of personal necessity of the Petitioner-landlord. Learned Counsel made a reference to various clauses of the family settlement and argued that as per the recital the Petitioner-landlord was required to give Rs. 1500/- per month as rent to his brother and that when he stepped into the witness box he had stated that the rent was being paid to his brother but subsequently he resiled from the said statement and stated that the rent was being paid to his father and not to his brother. Learned Counsel further made reference to the statement of Sri Vinod Kumar the landlord and argued vehemently that the whole story of creation of documents such as family settlement, sale deed and ultimately the order of eviction was nothing but collusion amongst the members of the family to oust the Petitioner-tenant from the demised premises.

He further argued that the ground of personal necessity cannot be said to be made out under any circumstances. It is admitted case of the Petitioner landlord that he has in his occupation the premises which belong to his father and that the premises are sufficient for his needs. He has substantiated his argument by relying upon a judgment of the Single Bench of this Court rendered in Salim Ahmed Vs. Surjit Kumar Sahai, . The support has been taken for the argument, that it is not, whenever the landlord purchased the house, he can automatically be taken to be requiring the property bona fidely for his own use and occupation. He has also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court for adverting to the principle that if the landlord is in occupation of another residential building as a tenant, the filing of eviction petition on the ground of bona fide personal necessity cannot be said to be made out. The rent legislation is a social legislation and is meant for, granting complete protection to the tenant from the rigour of increase of rent every now and then.

It has been further argued that the Petitioner-tenant was well within his right in questioning the legality of the family settlement and the sale deed effected in pursuant thereto and that the purchase of the demised premises by the son Shri Vinod Kumar. In support of this, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court i Devi Dass Vs. Mohan Lal, .

I am afraid that the above said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. There are sufficient attendant circumstances and the facts which had been brought on record for determining the fact as to whether the Respondent-landlord requires the premises for his personal use and occupation. However, the judgment rendered in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, (1980)82 P.L.R. 613, has been duly noticed by the Full Bench of this Court while rendering judgment in Romesh Kumar''s case (supra).

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-landlord has argued that the Petitioner-tenant is not entitled to question the validity of the family settlement and so also the sale deed and in fact the perusal of the issue which had been framed and for which the case had been remanded would show that the collusiveness of the eviction proceedings was to be determined. The finding in respect of the said issue was returned in favour of the Respondent-landlord and the cumulative effect of all the orders which have been passed by the learned Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority and by this Court would show that there was no collusion and in fact it is the bona fide need of the Respondent-landlord for requiring the demised premises for his personal use and occupation.

Learned Counsel has again drawn my attention to the recitals of the family settlement and has specifically pointed out that the rent for the premises which were in possession of the Respondent-landlord was to be paid to the father and not the brother till the said premises are vacated by the Petitioner-landlord. The perusal of the same testifies the argument of the Learned Counsel. It has been further argued that if the landlord himself is residing in the tenanted premises that would not deny the right to the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant from his own premises especially when it is shown as a matter of fact that he has to vacate the premises and is under the pressure of the judicial process to vacate the premises. In support thereof, reliance has been placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Romesh Kumar v. Atma Devi and others, (1985) 87 P.L.R. 751 (FB), the relevant extract of which reads as under:

The Learned Counsel then urged that the decision in Karnail Singh''s case (supra) may be explained to the extent that the landlord would be entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant in spite of the fact that he is occupying another residential building as lessee if he has sufficient cause to vacate the building in his occupation or the same is not sufficient/suitable for his needs. There is hardly any need to do so because what was held in Karnail Singh''s case (supra) was only that the landlord would not be entitled to claim eviction of the tenant simply on the ground that he was in occupation of the premises in the same urban area as tenant without alleging and proving anything more. The Bench, therefore, never held that the landlord occupying another premises in the urban area concerned as tenant would not be entitled to eject his own tenant if there is sufficient cause for him to vacate the premises in his occupation or the same are not sufficient/suitable for his needs. AH the same we do agree with the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that there is no absolute bar for a landlord to seek ejectment of a tenant from his own house if he is occupying another premises in the same urban area as lessee and the landlord would be entitled to claim ejectment of his tenant if the premises in his occupation are not sufficient/suitable for his needs or he has some other reasonable causes to vacate the same. Subject to this observation the rule laid down in Karnail Singh''s case (supra) is affirmed.

So far as personal need for seeking the eviction of the tenant for his own occupation is concerned, it has been argued that the landlord is the best judge himself and in this regard reliance has been placed upon Menal Eknath Kshirsagar v. M/s Traders & Agencies, 1996(2)RCR 233(SC), Doctor Hukam Chand Dhawan Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and Another,

I have considered the rival arguments of the Learned Counsel for the parties and I am of the considered view that the finding returned on the issue that the eviction has been sought of the Respondent-landlord by way of collusion amongst the members of the family is absolutely correct as the Courts below have found it as a matter of fact that there is no collusion amongst the brothers for seeking vacation of the premises by the Respondent-landlord. I have also noticed the order passed in C.R. No. 4310 of 1999 passed by V.S. Aggarwal, J. vide which only a period of six months had been granted to Shri Vinod Kumar now landlord for vacating the premises in question. It has been disclosed that in view of the undertaking given by the Respondent now landlord the premises have been duly vacated and at present he is living with his friend at his sufferance.

So far as need and necessity of the landlord is concerned, the sufficiency of accommodation has to be left to the judgment and the circumstances of the landlord. In the present case, I am supported by the observation made by v. Aggarwal, J. where it is mentioned that the premises are small and the number of the members of the family is too large and probably they arc ten in number. One thing cannot escape notice that the Respondent-landlord filed the petition for seeking eviction of the tenant only on the ground of personal necessity and that the necessity every time stood corroborated from the attendant circumstances which emerged in one way or the other and stood testified from the judicial pronouncements from time to time.

For the foregoing reasons. I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.

The records of the Courts below have been requisitioned and the same are directed to be returned to the Courts below.