Vir Bhan vs Avtar Krishan, etc.

Falsbaw, C.J.—This is revision petition filed by a tenat Vir Bhan against whom an ejectment orders passed the Rent Collector was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The ground on which the ejectment order, has been passed was personal requirement, the relevant facts regarding which are that the premises in suit consisting a house in the town of Batala belong two brothers Avtar Krishan and Rur Chand and although the claim in the petition was that both of them required the house for their own occupation it has been found by both the Court that this was not so in the case of one of the brothers. Rur Chand, who is employed in the Police at Amritsar. However, the requirement was found to be genuine in the case of the second brother Avtar Krishan who lives some miles outside Batala, but has to come there every day to work in connection, with his interests in two small industrial businesses.

I do not see any reason for reopening the finding of fact of the lower Courts, but the question which arises is whether on these facts a decree for ejectment could be passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the words in section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act "A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession......(i) in the case of a residential building, if (a) he requires it for his own occupation" must mean, in a case where the landlord comprises more than one individual, that all the landlords jointly must require the house for occupation by all of them, and it is not sufficient if, as in the present case, there are two brothers as landlords and only one of the brothers needs the leased premises for his occupation.

This interpretation does not appeal to me and obviously, if followed to its logical conclusion, it could result in considerable bard-ship to landlords. For instance there might be ten joint owners of a house and, if this interpretation is correct, it would mean that even if nine of them needed the accommodation leased to tenants, they would not be entitled to get a decree for ejectment.

Indeed I would have rejected the argument summarily, but for the fact that there is an English decision which appears to support it. This is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mc Intyre & another v. Hardcastle (1948) 2 K.B. 82, in which a somewhat similar provision in the English Act was considered and in a case where two sisters, joint owners of a house, sought possession of the house on the ground that the house was required as residence for one of them it was held that the case was not within the paragraph and that no order for possession could be made under it.

There does not appear to be any direct authority of this Court on the point though my attention was drawn to a decision of my own in Daulat Ram and another v. Raj Rani Civil Revision No. 333 of 1961, Civil Revision No. 333 of 1961 decided on the 8th of December 1961. In that case the property was owned by two brothers one of whom was not taking much interest in it since he was working and residing at Gwalior, and the other brother instituted proceedings on the ground of personal requirement and impleaded his absent brother as a respondent. I held that the petitioner in that case could maintain the petition, but I did not specifically consider the question whether in the case of two landlords a decree could be passed for the personal requirement of only one of them and the English case was not cited before me.

That case has, however, been considered by the Calcutta High Court and the case of Kanika Devi and others v. Amarendra Nath 65 C.W.N. 1078, has been cited. This was a Letters Patent Appeal against an order in which the learned Single Judge had refused a decree for ejectment following the principles laid down in the case of Mc Intyre v. Hardcastle (1948) 2 K.B. 82. It was held by Bachawat and Chatterjee JJ., who followed two earlier decisions by Division Benches of that Court, that in matters of this kind the learned Judges of this country should not be guided by the views of the English Judges interpreting the English statutes and that where out of a number of persons constituting the body of the landlords one landlord reasonably requires the premises for his own use and occupation that should be considered to amount to a requirement on the part of all the landlords. With this view I am in respectful agreement and I accordingly dismiss the present revision petition, but leave the parties to bear their own costs and allow the tenant two months from today to vacate the premises.