Vinod Kumar vs Shri Bhu Dev Parshad Sharma

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s petition, whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The landlord-Vinod Kumar sought ejectment of his tenant, Bhu Dev Parshad from the house in dispute, consisting of two rooms 9''x10'', 13''x10'', Kitchen 5''x7'', bath room 8''x5'' and the vacant land situated on both sides of the above-mentioned rooms. The landlord purchased the said house in the year 1976 for a sum of Rs. 27000/-. The ejectment application was filed on 11th September, 1979 on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of Rent fron 1st July, 1976 to 31st October, 1979, and secondly the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was not occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Faridabad in his own right except the one occupied by him as a tenant consisting of on room 15''X10'' and a kitchen 3''X4'' which was insufficient to meet his requirements. According to the landlord, there are may members of his family who are living together in the said tenanted room. The father and the mother of the landlord are very old and infirm persons. He has got two grown up sisters of marriageable age.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, these allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide. As regards the arrears of rent, the same were tendered on the first date of hearing, though according to the landlord, the tender was not valid. However, the learned Rent Controller negatived both the pleas of the landlord and thus dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal, the only question agitated was the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The learned Appellate Authority upheld the finding of the learned Rent Controller on this point and thus maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissaitsfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities below have mainly relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi (1980) 82 P.L.R. 613 and have not given any finding as to whether the premises in occupation of the landlord as tenant is sufficient to meet his requirements or not. According to the learned counsel, even in the said judgment of the Division Bench, it has been observed that there is no bar in the way of the landlord if he can prove that the residential building in his occupation is in sufficient to meet his own requirement. Therefore the occupation of the other building must commensurate with the requirement of the needs of the landlord. According to the learned counsel, this aspect of the case has not been gone into by the authorities below and, therefore the finding arrived at is vitiated.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that whether the landlord bona fide required the building or not is a question of fact and since both the Courts below have found that the requirement was not bona fide the same could not be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record. No where, it has been found either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority that one room in the occupation of the landlord as tenant was sufficient to meet his requirement. The finding of the appellate Authority is that "the petitioner had been in possession of the various premises within the urban area concerned and is presently also in the possession of a house in his capacity as a tenant. As it is, there is nothing on the file to suggest that the petitioner had vacated the previous premises without any sufficient cause" These observations are based on surmises and conjectures. Of course, the tenant has been residing earlier in the tenanted premises which he had to vacate from time to time. Later he was residing in the house of his mother which was sold in the year 1976. It was on that account that he purchased the present house in dispute in the year 1976, and filed the present ejectment application in 1979 when he had to take one room on rent for his occupation along with his other family members including his parents. There is no evidence on the record to show that the landlord is in occupation or is owner of any other premises in the urban area concerned except the one room which he is occupying as a tenant and for which he is paying Rs. 80/- per month. Nirmal Dass, A.W. 2 is the landlord of that room. He has come in the witness box and categorically stated that Vinod Kumar is living in a rented accommodation and is paying Rs. 80/- per month to him as rent. He further stated that he is now in bona fide requirement of the same and has asked to vacate the same. He has also stated that a number of the family members are residing with him in that one room. There is absolutely no rebuttal to this evidence of the landlord, with respect to the number of family members residing with the landlord or that he has any other premises except that one room which he is occupying as a tenant. As stated earlier, the premises in dispute consist of two rooms and a kitchen etc. which is at a rent of Rs. 35/-per month only with the tenant. Thus, taking into consideration, all the fact and circumstances of the case, it has been amply proved on the record that the requirement of the landlord is most bona fide to occupy his own house. The approach of the authorities below is wrong, illegal and misconceived.

It may be noticed that the tenant is paying higher rent for one room whereas he is only getting Rs. 35/- per month for the demised premises. This by itself proves the bona fide requirements of the landlord to occupy his own premises. It was held in Shri Hukam Rai v. Chhail Bihari Lal 1978 (1) R.C.R. 591, that if the landlord wanted his own house to save higher rent which he was paying in rented house, his need is bonafide. To the similar effect is the judgment in Om Parkash v. Prem Chand Aggarwal 1981 (1) R.C.R. 96, wherein it was held that if a landlord is living in a tenanted accommodation and paying higher rent, then that is sufficient cause for the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant from his own building. There the Division Bench judgment in Karnail Singh''s case (supra) was also considered and it was observed that there was no such absolute rule of law that a landlord living in a tenated building is not entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant. It may be pointed out that the landlord also wanted to argue the validity of the tender made by the tenant, but since this question was not raised before the Appellate Authority, it could not be allowed to be agitated in this revision petition.

Under the circumstances of the case, the petition succeeds the orders of the authorities below are set aside, and the eviction order is passed against the tenant from the demised premises. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the same provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for three months is deposited within one month from today, with the Rent Controller, with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period, the vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord.