Ved Parkash alias Mauji Fitter vs Smt. Sona alias Swarna

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This is tenant''s civil revision arising out of the order of ejectment passed by the authorities below.

Ejectment of the tenant was sought by the landlady (respondent herein) on the ground that the tenant has acquired possession of residential building No. 306-K, Railway Colony, Kalka and the accommodation so acquired by the tenant is sufficient for his requirement. It was pleaded that quarter No. 306-K has been allotted to the tenant by the railway authorities as the respondent is an employee of the railway department. At the time of filing the petition, it was stated that he is in possession of the quarter allotted to him. Plan of the property in dispute was attached with the plaint. Landlady also pleaded that she requires the tenanted premises for her own requirement as her family consist of herself, husband, one daughter and three sons.

Petition was contested by the tenant who in his written statement stated that the premises in his occupation are not required by the landlady. With regard to allotment of a railway quarter, he did not say any thing in his written statement but only stated that he is not in occupation of any other building except the premises under his tenancy. Landlady, in order to prove that the railway quarter was allotted to the tenant, brought on record Exhibit AW 4/2, letter of allotment dated 23-11-1972: as well as letter, Exhibit AW 4/1 vide which tenant applied for the allotment of a railway quarter. In the application, Exhibit AW-4/1 he asked the railway authorities to allot him a single room quarter as the same would be sufficient for his accommodation. She also prove on record, plan Exhibit A-l showing tenated premises and Exhibit A-2, plan of the railway quarter allotted to the tenant.

On the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Rent Controller found that the quarter was allotted to the tenant who came into possession of the same and thus ha is liable to be ejected on the ground that he acquired possession of a building which was reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the urban area concerned. On appeal the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller and consequently dismissed the appeal. The orders of the authorities below are being challenged in this civil revision.

Mr. V. K. Jain, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities under the Act could not pass the order of ejectment against the tenant merely because a quarter was allotted to the tenant. He submitted that u/s 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), tenant can be ejected only if he acquire the premises by way of ownership and that building must be sufficient for his requirement in the urban area concerned. He further contended that the tenant never constructed his own house and, therefore, the order of ejectment is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlady contended that once the government accommodation stood allotted to the tenant which is sufficient for his requirement, tenant loses his protection under the Act.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this civil revision.

8 Clause (iv) of sub-section (3) (a) of section 13 of the Act provides as under : -

"13(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-

(a) in the case of a residential building, if,-

XX XX XX XX (iv) the tenant has already in his own possession a residential building or subsequently acquires possession of, or erects, such a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the urban area concerned; "

Reading of clause (iv) of sub-Section (3) (a) of section 13 of the Act shows that the landlady is entitled to apply to the Controller for ejectment of the tenant provided tenant acquires possession of or erects a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the urban area concerned The provision no where provides that the tenant must own a building, possession or which he acquires. Once the tenant comes into possession of a building in his own right, whether as owner or allottee, the landlady is entitled to apply to the Controller for his ejectment but before an order of ejectment is passed, the Controller has to satisfy himself that the building so occupied by the tenant is sufficient for his requirement. Thus, I find no force in the contention of learned counsel for the tenant that the building must be owned before he is ejected from the tenanted premises. With regard to sufficiency of accommodation, both the authorities below have come to a finding that the quarter allotted to the tenant was sufficient for his requirement. This is a pure finding of fact and calls for no interference.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the tenant contended that after the allotment, the quarter was vacated by the tenant on 7-3-1980. Tenant cannot take advantage of this because the quarter was vacated by him only after the filing of the ejectment petition which was filed on 19-1-1980. The landlady acquired right to seek ejectment of her tenant the moment the quarter was allotted to him and such a right cannot be defeated subsequent to the filing of the petition.

As a result thereof, this civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitioner is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided he pays tenders the entire arrears of rent including that of three months within one month from today and files an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he shall hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlady on the expiry of the aforesaid period.