Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 603 (PNJ)

Sumesh Gupta v. Shamila Gupta

2000-05-31

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Sumesh Gupta (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 31.3.1999 and of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated 15.11.1999. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner which was up-held by the learned Appellate Authority. 2. The relevant facts are that respondent claimed eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the husband Dr. (Col.) Bhisham Parkash Gupta was the owner of the house in dispute. Petitioner is a tenant in three rooms, kitchen, bathroom-cum-latrine, a common terrace on the back side and a common verandah on the first floor of the premises. The husband of the respondent died on 13.8.1996. He had executed a will in favour of the respondent. The eviction of the petitioner is being claimed on the ground (which survives for consideration) that she requires the suit premises for herself and members of her family. Her son had shifted to Chandigarh with his family. The respondent keeps ill health. There is no body to look after her. The accommodation with her is totally insufficient for the respondent and the other members of the family of her son Major Arvind Gupta. The brothers and sisters of the respondent come to visit her to give her moral support. But they cannot be accommodated in the house for want of space. The other son of the respondent is in United States of America and he also comes to visit the respondent. 3. In the written statement filed, the petitioner had contested the eviction petition. It is denied that the respondent bona fide requires the property for her personal use. The respondent was stated to be already occupying the entire ground floor of the house in question which is built in a two kanal area. As per the petitioner, the respondent has not come to the Court with clean hands and that she is only interested in enhancement of the rent. The respondent was stated to be living alone on the ground floor. It is denied that she keeps bad health. It was even denied that her son with his family is staying with the respondent. On the contrary it has been alleged that respondents son is residing in the Government accommodation provided by the Army authorities. 4. The respondent was stated to be living alone on the ground floor. It is denied that she keeps bad health. It was even denied that her son with his family is staying with the respondent. On the contrary it has been alleged that respondents son is residing in the Government accommodation provided by the Army authorities. 4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and concluded after recording of evidence that the respondent needed the suit premises for her use. Consequently, the eviction of the petitioner was ordered. Petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority held that the respondent was suffering from certain diseases and was not hail and hearty. It was further held that son of the respondent had been given sanction by the Army authorities to live in his own arrangement with his family in the house in question and that he in fact had been living with the respondent. It was held further that the respondent requires the property for herself and member of her family because the accommodation with the respondent was not sufficient for herself, her son and the children of the son of the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been preferred. 5. While during the course of proceedings before the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority there has been a controversy if the respondent is paralysed and whether her son Major Arvind Gupta who is serving in India Army is residing with her. However, during the course of arguments in this revision, this fact has not been disputed. In paragraph 4 of the grounds of revision, this controversy has been closed because it has been so admitted. It reads :- "4. That admittedly, the respondent is an old lady and unfortunately, is a paralysed on left side and as per the statement of Maj. Arvind Gupta, PW-5, she was in a serious condition and had to be admitted in the Command Hospital in Chandi Mandir and she can not move without help. In order to help the old ailing mother, Maj. Arvind Gupta got himself transferred to Chandigarh and has shifted his family consisting of his wife and two minor children in House No. 155, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh and are" living with their mother." 6. In order to help the old ailing mother, Maj. Arvind Gupta got himself transferred to Chandigarh and has shifted his family consisting of his wife and two minor children in House No. 155, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh and are" living with their mother." 6. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner was that even if it be assumed that Major Arvind Gupta is residing with her family with the respondent, still the respondent is having sufficient accommodation. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Salim Ahmed v. Surjit Kumar Sahai, (1998-3)120 Punjab Law Reporter 182 to urge that the landlord at any time and every time can not seek eviction. It is not his whimsical or fanciful desire. There has to be an element of need before it can be stated that the requirement is bona fide. 7. This proposition of law has not been disputed. 8. The law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and ordinarily the Court will not impose its own standard. The same has to be weighed by that of a reasonable person. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, 1987(2) Rent Control Reporter 580 held :- "He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The High Court is rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thinks that because of her age she needs to be looked after. Now, that is a look-out of the appellant and not of the High Court. We fail to appreciate the High Court giving such a gratuitous advice which was uncalled for. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. Now, that is a look-out of the appellant and not of the High Court. We fail to appreciate the High Court giving such a gratuitous advice which was uncalled for. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. We accordingly reverse the finding reached by the High Court and restore that of the Rent Controller that the appellant had established her bona fide requirement of the demised for her personal use and occupation, which finding was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence in the light of the surrounding circumstances." Similarly, in the case of Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs) v. Traders & Agencies and Anr., (1996)5 Supreme Court Cases 344, the Supreme Court went on to hold that it is the landlord who is the best judge of his requirement. In other words, unless mala fides or other circumstances are shown, the discretion so exercised may not be interfered with. In fact while considering as to whether the requirement is bona fide or not, totality of facts has to be seen. It would be improper, therefore, to provide a strait jacket formula. 9 In the present case in hand admittedly the respondent is in occupation of the ground floor premises except one bedroom which has been let. The ground floor comprised of drawing-cum-dinning room a lobby, a study-room and two bedrooms with attached baths. On the first floor out of five rooms, three rooms have been let to the petitioner. There are two rooms with attached baths which are stated to be with the respondent. There is one more room which has been let. The second floor has also been let. 10. In this process, the respondent has two bedrooms on the ground floor and two bedrooms on the first floor. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is a study room which can be used as a bedroom. I am afraid that the tenant-petitioner cannot insist that study room can be used as a bedroom. While making such observations, one cannot loose sight of standard of living of a particular person. The respondent herself is a widow of one Dr. (Col.) Bhisham Parkash Gupta. Her son is serving as a Major in the Indian Army and, therefore, one can conveniently presume that they are used to be living in a comfortable manner. 12. While making such observations, one cannot loose sight of standard of living of a particular person. The respondent herself is a widow of one Dr. (Col.) Bhisham Parkash Gupta. Her son is serving as a Major in the Indian Army and, therefore, one can conveniently presume that they are used to be living in a comfortable manner. 12. In that event learned counsel for the petitioner urged that another application for eviction had been field by the respondent which had been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller with respect to other premises in the same building. He had submitted an application for additional evidence. The fact as such is not disputed and, therefore, can be considered. 13. When the eviction petition of the respondent had been dismissed with respect to some other person and the appeal against the same is pending, it is clear that the matter is sub-judice. In any case it cannot be termed that the requirement by itself has become mala fide. This is so because the evidence on the record has to be considered and the other petition will have to be decided on basis of the material on the record. The argument of the petitioner in this regard, therefore, must fail. 14. If one room is given to the respondent and the other bedroom to the married son of the respondent who is living with her, it is claimed that two bedrooms on the first floor are required for the children. The respondent had appeared as PW-1. She stated that she requires a woman nurse throughout the day to help her. Beside her son Major Arvind Gupta, she has another son who is residing in United States of America. She has two daughters. One of them is settled in United States of America and the other in Nagaland. It was argued that household goods of her three children are lying in her house and that she has no accommodation for her relatives who come for her welfare and they cannot stay with her. This evidence which cannot be ignored shows that the available accommodation is just sufficient for the respondent, her son who is serving in the Indian Army and the family of the son of the respondent. She can certainly ask for more accommodation because her relatives can visit which include her daughters, her son from United States of America and other relatives. She can certainly ask for more accommodation because her relatives can visit which include her daughters, her son from United States of America and other relatives. In these circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. 15. For these reasons, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the premises.