Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1128 (PNJ)

Tarsem Singh v. Vivek Puri

2000-09-18

S.S.SUDHALKAR

body2000
Judgment S.S.Sudhalkar, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order of the Rent Controller who ordered his eviction under Section 13(A) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Rent Act). The respondent had filed a petition contending therein that he is specified landlord and that he is co-landlord of the premises in question along with his mother and brother and that he was in service of the Punjab Government and was posted as Head of Department at Medical College at Amritsar. He has further contended that he retired on 31.10.1997 after attaining the age of superannuation. He wants to shift at Sangrur to look after his aged mother and his mentally retarded brother. 2. The premises in question consists of two floors; ground and first floor. The first floor is in the possession of the petitioner-tenant and the ground floor is in the possession of the respondent-landlord. According to the respondent his mother and brother are staying on the ground floor. The parties have produced the sketches of the ground floor portion. The one produced by the respondent is marked as Ex.P/4 at page 50 and the one produced by the petitioner is at Ex. R/1. The controversy between the parties regarding the map is not much regarding the dimensions of the rooms, but is regarding the user of the rooms as mentioned in the map. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent had contended that in this revision he is not going to raise an objection that the question of requirement should not be gone into by the Court while deciding the question of granting possession to the landlord under Section 13-A of the Rent Act. This is because in another revision petition, similar issue is involved and the question is referred to a Division Bench. Thus the dispute between the parties has narrowed down and the point now remains to be considered is whether the landlord can be said to require the premises or not and whether the premises in possession of the landlord is sufficient or not. It is not disputed that the respondent retired from Amritsar and wants to settle at Sangrur. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Mrs. Rena Drego v. Dalchand Soni etc., 1998(1) Judicial Reports (C&R) 599. It is not disputed that the respondent retired from Amritsar and wants to settle at Sangrur. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Mrs. Rena Drego v. Dalchand Soni etc., 1998(1) Judicial Reports (C&R) 599. It has been observed therein that the word `reasonable cannot mean convenient or luxurious, though it may not necessarily exclude the idea of convenience and comfort. It has been further observed that it can be taken as providing an angle which is comfortable or agreeable to reasons, having regard to the facts of the particular controversy. That was the judgment under the law applicable to Bombay. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the case of S.P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan, 1987(1) R.C.R. 347 (SC). It is a judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Sections 24-B and 24-C of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. It has been held therein that where the landlord occupied ground floor of building and first floor was occupied by the tenant and both the portions of the house were capable of being used by the landlord separately and the landlord could eject the tenant under other provisions of the Act if he was otherwise entitled to. 6. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the finding of fact cannot be disturbed in a revision. He has also argued that the revision provided under the Rent Act by Section 18-A(8) does not give same powers as given by Section 15(5) of the Rent Act. He has relied on the case of Dr. Dina Nath v. Smt. Santokh Kaur etc., 1987(1) P.L.R. 171. He has relied on the following observations :- "The power of the High Court under the provision to sub-section (8) of Section 18-A is not extensive with the power of revision under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act. The former does not confer power on the High Court to appreciate the evidence to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the order. It can call for the record of the case for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order made by the Rent Controller is according to law. The former does not confer power on the High Court to appreciate the evidence to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the order. It can call for the record of the case for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order made by the Rent Controller is according to law. In other words it can interfere with the order if it is without jurisdiction or contrary to law and express provisions of the Act as amended by the Punjab Act No. 2 of 1985 or where the order is perverse resulting in miscarriage of justice." 7. The said judgment considered the provisions or the Rent Act as applicable to Punjab. He has also relied on the case of Kashmir Singh Bhullar v. Punjab and Sind Bank and others, 1997(2) P.L.R. 662 : 1997(2) RCR (Rent) 163 (SC). He has referred to paragraph 3 of the judgment : "We have perused the impugned judgment of the High Court regarding grant of leave to defend as well as the order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the application of the respondent. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller. There was no dispute on the facts and the only question was whether the accommodation with the appellant was sufficient for the needs of his family. The Rent Controller has taken into consideration the accommodation that was available with the respondent in the premises as well as the accommodation available in the portion of the premises in occupation of the son of the appellant and the need of the appellant and his family and has found that the accommodation in possession of the appellant was not sufficient for his use. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was in error in interfering with the said view of the Rent Controller." 8. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the mother of the respondent- landlord is a co-landlord and she is receiving rent and, therefore, the rent petition filed by the respondent cannot be said to be maintainable. He has also argued that the summary procedure as provided under Section 13-A is applicable to government servants who are specified landlords. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the mother of the respondent- landlord is a co-landlord and she is receiving rent and, therefore, the rent petition filed by the respondent cannot be said to be maintainable. He has also argued that the summary procedure as provided under Section 13-A is applicable to government servants who are specified landlords. In this case, according to him, respondent-landlord cannot be said to be specified landlord because he is a co-landlord and the petitioner is paying rent to the mother of the respondent-landlord and not the respondent. He has also argued that the respondent has right to appeal and file revision thereafter. Counsel for the respondent has replied that one co-owner can file a rent petition and has relied on the case of Moti Lal Gaur v. Amrit Lal Chauhan, 1992(2) RLR 451 : 1992(2) RCR (Rent) 525 (P&H). It has been held in that case that the petition by one of the co-owners/co-sharers is maintainable without impleading the other landlord as a party under Section 13-A of the Rent Act. Learned Counsel has stated that the petitioner has not pressed this issue before the Rent Controller. 9. The findings on issue No. 2 by the Rent Controller are as under :- "Issue No. 2 :- 10. This issue was raised by the respondent that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties but nothing was said on this issue. So, this issue is decided against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner." 10 Even otherwise, in view of the judgment in the case of Moti Lal Gaur (supra), the petition under Section 13-A by the respondent was maintainable. 11. Regarding the question of finding of fact is concerned, the Rent Controller has held that the accommodation with the petitioner under ground floor is insufficient. It is not shown that the position regarding the sufficiency of the accommodation is wrong. If the Rent Controller had based his finding regarding sufficiency of accommodation on mistaken consideration of the fact, this court could have interfered in the revision. An attempt has been made to show from the maps on record that the accommodation available to the respondent is sufficient. There are two maps produced in this case. One is Ex. P/4 and the second is Ex.R/1. The maps are regarding the premises in possession of the respondent. An attempt has been made to show from the maps on record that the accommodation available to the respondent is sufficient. There are two maps produced in this case. One is Ex. P/4 and the second is Ex.R/1. The maps are regarding the premises in possession of the respondent. So far as the structural position in both the maps is concerned, there is a negligible difference. Both the maps are of ground floor of the premises. The difference is mainly on the user of the rooms mentioned in the maps. Respondent has stated in his deposition as PW-1 that he has the mother, who is 80 years of age and requires constant attention. He has got a brother, who is 48 years of age and is mentally retarded and dumb from his birth. 12. The case of respondent is that he requires the upper storey of the house so that he could bring luggage and family consisting of his wife and unmarried son and that the ground floor construction is insufficient for accommodating the members of the family. He has also stated that he has two daughters. The elder one is in Delhi and the younger is in Amritsar and they frequently visit the respondent. Further, respondent has stated in his deposition that he requires three rooms for his occupation because one of the rooms will be used as bed room for him and his wife, second for un-married son and the 3rd room as Guest room and there is no proper guest room to accommodate his guests including relatives and friends. 13. He has stated that the rooms which are marked in the maps are used as mentioned in the maps. He has stated that there is one garage, one common room for ladies and other persons, who come to talk to his mother, there is one drawing room, one bath room for his mother and brother, there is one store and one dining room. There is only one bath room and one latrine. 14. Counsel for the petitioner tried to show the usage as per the map, produced by it Ex. R/1. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the use of the ground floor premises cannot be made as mentioned in the map Ex.R/1. There is only one bath room and one latrine. 14. Counsel for the petitioner tried to show the usage as per the map, produced by it Ex. R/1. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the use of the ground floor premises cannot be made as mentioned in the map Ex.R/1. Looking to the dimensions and nature of rooms, it cannot be said that the landlord can make use of the rooms as suggested in Ex. R/1. Therefore, it can be found that the ground floor portion is not sufficient to accommodate the respondent and his family members. This being so, the judgment of the Rent Controller does not require any interference. 15. As mentioned above, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord has consented so far as this case is concerned, that he will not take an objection for considering the question of requirement and sufficiency of the accommodation. However, even if the question of requirement and sufficiency is considered, the result in this case, cannot be otherwise. This revision petition is, therefore, without any merit and deserves dismissal. 16. As a result of this revision petition is dismissed. However, in order to avoid any inconvenience, it is ordered that the stay granted against the execution of the order of Rent Controller shall continue for a period of three months from today.