Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1181 (PNJ)

Hari Ram v. Madho Ram

2001-10-22

R.L.ANAND

body2001
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a tenants revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 9.2.1983 passed by the Court of appellate authority under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Karnal vide which he allowed the appeal of the landlord by setting aside the order dated 18.5.1982 passed by the learned Rent Controller who had dismissed the ejectment application of the landlord holding that it is not proved on the record that the landlord required the demised premises bona fide. However, the learned appellate authority granted one months time to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises. 2. Before I give the facts of this case I may make a mention here that the present revision was filed by Shri Hari Ram tenant against Shri Madho Ram, landlord. During the pendency of this revision Shri Madho Ram, landlord, has expired and his Legal Representatives have been brought on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Madho Ram, landlord deceased file an ejectment application against Shri Hari Ram tenant. It was inter alia pleaded that Shri Hari Ram was inducted as a tenant in the portion of House No. 267, Sector 12, situated in Hanuman Gali, Karnal on as a monthly rent of Rs. 36/-. He is in occupation of two rooms and a verandah of the upper storey of the said house. The ejectment was sought on three grounds i.e. non-payment of rent with effect from 1.12.1977 to 30.4.1979; impairing the value and utility of the demised premises and the need of the landlords for shifting to the portion of the house in question along with the family of his son. 4. Ejectment application was contested by the tenant on the plea that the landlord had not accepted the rent in spite of being tendered in the Court. It was also stated that the landlord has got another house which has sufficient capacity of accommodation. Moreover, there was other tenants in the building in question against whom no petition for ejectment was filed. Reference was also made to another portion of the building which was vacated recently but had been let out to someone else. In these circumstances, the dismissal of the petition was sought for. 5. Moreover, there was other tenants in the building in question against whom no petition for ejectment was filed. Reference was also made to another portion of the building which was vacated recently but had been let out to someone else. In these circumstances, the dismissal of the petition was sought for. 5. Landlord filed the rejoinder in which he reiterated his allegations made in the rent petition by denying those of the written reply and from the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the premises are required by the petitioner for his occupation, as alleged in the application ? 2. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the present petition ? 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct to bring this petition ? 5. Whether the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the premises, if so, in what manner and to what effect ? 6. Relief. 6. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application of Shri Madho Ram holding that landlord has failed to prove issue No. 1 and, therefore, the ejectment cannot be ordered against the tenant on the ground of bona fide necessity. The reasons of dismissal of the ejectment application are given in paras No. 6 to 11 of the judgment dated 18.5.1982, which are reproduced as under :- "6. Besides the statement of the petitioner that the premises in dispute are required for the occupation of his son Rajbir and his family, there is statement of Jai Narain A.W.2 in that respect. 7. On the other hand, the respondent appearing as R.W. 1 stated that the petitioner has got three rooms in his occupation in Dayal Pura Colony and he was not in need of the house in dispute. 8. 7. On the other hand, the respondent appearing as R.W. 1 stated that the petitioner has got three rooms in his occupation in Dayal Pura Colony and he was not in need of the house in dispute. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that because of pacunity of accommodation with the petitioner, he has approached the Court to get the ejectment order against the respondent from the house in dispute and there was nothing to doubt the bona fides of his requirement to occupy the house for the accommodation of his son and sons family and the issue No. 1 was proved and the issue be decided in his favour. 9. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent stated that so far as the personal requirement of the petitioner for accommodation of house in dispute was concerned, the statement A.W.2 was not relevant as he could not know whether he required premises in dispute bona fidely or not ? He then stated that there was besides the testimony of A.W.2, solitary statement of the petitioner which was refuted by the respondent as the petitioner alleged that he needed the house for the accommodation of his son which was denied by the respondent. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner has stated that his son Rajbir was posted in Agro Industries Ladwa. He stated that the children of his son were studying in S.D. Model School, Karnal. He stated further that Rajbir had two sons and two daughters. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that Rajbir had four children and they were of school going age then naturally they might be in the range of more than 4/5 years and the eldest son might be of the age of 10/12 years. He pointed out that the perusal of the petition would show that it is not contained therein that what precipitated the petitioner to bring this application for ejectment of the respondent from the house in dispute as he contended that if the petitioner and his son and sons family could reside in the accommodation in their possession earlier, then why could they not continue living there. He pointed out that there was nothing in the petition that why and how now necessity of getting the premises in dispute vacated from the respondent for accommodation by the son of the petitioner was felt. I agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petition is silent that what factor had cropped now which made the petitioner to bring this petition for ejectment of the respondent in order to occupy the premises in dispute by the son and sons family of the petitioner. 10. Then the learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the house in dispute was situated in Hanuman Gali, Karnal whereas the house where the petitioner and his son presently are living in Dayal Pura Colony. He contended that it was not contained in the petition that why the petitioners son now wanted to shift from the present accommodation Dayal Pura Colony to Hanuman Gali, Karnal. He further added that the petitioner was a blind man and it could not be denied that if the petitioner was having only one son then he was the only person to look after him and the petitioner cannot live alone in the present house and his son shift to another colony leaving his father untended and alone. 11. Moreover, the petitioners case that he is in occupation of the room, the verandah and one kitchen is denied by the respondent who stated that the petitioner at present was in occupation of three rooms. Because no such event is stated in the petition which cropped in the mind of the petitioners son to shift from the house in Dayal Pura Colony to Hanuman Gali, Karnal, accommodation and the petitioner being a blind man cannot live alone without the help and availability of his son Rajbir and the age of the petitioners grand children further showed that they were well settled in the accommodation in Dayal Pura and this petition wherein it is stated that the premises are required for accommodation of the son of the petitioner is not genuine." 7. Not satisfied with the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed the appeal before the appellate authority which allowed the appeal for the reasons given in para Nos. 9 to 12 of its judgment dated 9.2.1983 and ordered the eviction of the tenant. Not satisfied with the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, the landlord filed the appeal before the appellate authority which allowed the appeal for the reasons given in para Nos. 9 to 12 of its judgment dated 9.2.1983 and ordered the eviction of the tenant. Paras No. 9 to 12 of the judgment of the first appellate authority are reproduced as under :- "9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has only challenged the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 1. In other words he contended that the Rent Controller went wrong in holding that the premises were required by the petitioner for his occupation, as alleged in the application. He has taken me through the evidence and on that basis argued that the family of the landlord consisted of himself, his son, daughter-in-law, and four children. The accommodation already available with the landlord in Dayal Pura i.e. one room and one kitchen with one court yard was hardly sufficient for the entire family. He admitted that there were other tenants but it was the will of the landlord to get evicted any tenant he liked and to see for himself what accommodation would be sufficient for him. He, therefore, concluded that the petition should have been accepted. He relied upon Badri Lal v. Digamber Jain, Panchayat, Sonkutch, 1973 RCR 675. 11. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that for all these years, the landlord with his family members were residing in Dayal Pura and this accommodation was considered sufficient, and if that was so, how could that accommodation be now considered as insufficient. He also argued that the landlord was a blind man, and it was highly improbable to think that he would alone live in the Dayal Pura House, and shift his other family members to the house in occupation of the tenants. Thus, according to him the need of the landlord was not bona fide. He cited Laxmi Devi v. Dr. Mela Ram, 1982(1) RCR 259." 12. I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel in the light of the case law cited. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents are not based either on the pleadings of the parties or the evidence adduced before the Rent Controller. He cited Laxmi Devi v. Dr. Mela Ram, 1982(1) RCR 259." 12. I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel in the light of the case law cited. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents are not based either on the pleadings of the parties or the evidence adduced before the Rent Controller. It is nowhere the case of the landlord that he would continue living in Dayal Pura house and would shift his son, his wife and four children to the house in occupation of the tenants. On the contrary, the case in the pleadings as well as in the evidence is that the accommodation at present was insufficient and the whole family wanted to shift to the premises in occupation of the tenant. The Rent Controller also fell into this error. The whole tenor of his judgment is that the landlord would continue staying in the present premises in Dayal Pura whereas the family members would shift to the premises in occupation of the tenant. On that basis the Rent Controller was of the view that it was improbable that father would live alone and therefore, the need was not bona fide. That being not the position having been found either in pleading or in evidence, I attach no importance to the contention of the learned Counsel made in this behalf and for that reason, to the reasoning advanced by the learned Rent Controller in his order. The case appears to be simple one. The family of the landlord consists of himself, his son, his daughter-in-law, and four children. The accommodation with them at present is one room, one kitchen and one court yard. Here again the Rent Controller has believed the sole statement of tenant that the accommodation with the landlord consists of three rooms and not of one room, whereas he had disbelieved the landlord and his witness on this aspect. The witness produced by the landlord is an independent witness. He is a neighbour. He has clearly stated that the accommodation is one room, and one kitchen. As compared to the two witnesses, examined on behalf of the landlord, there was bald statement of the tenant that there were three rooms in occupation of the landlord. The witness produced by the landlord is an independent witness. He is a neighbour. He has clearly stated that the accommodation is one room, and one kitchen. As compared to the two witnesses, examined on behalf of the landlord, there was bald statement of the tenant that there were three rooms in occupation of the landlord. In my opinion there was no basis with the Rent Controller to believe the statement of the tenant and reject the statement of the landlord and his witnesses. If the accommodation with the landlord was really three rooms, there was nothing which prevented the tenant to summon any witness from that locality, who could depose about that aspect. Thus, the family being large, the accommodation being insufficient at present, the need of the landlord to shift the premises in occupation of the tenant is bona fide and genuine. It is not the case of the tenant that his son resides outside. On the contrary he admitted that he is living with his father. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is an old lady aged 70 years had claimed ejectment of tenant as she wanted to live separately due to differences with her daughter-in-law. The plea of landlady was disbelieved because the Honble High Court was of the view that old lady required looking after by her close relations. In the present case the landlord with the family members of his son is shifting to the premises in dispute, where he would be looked after by his son. The situation is entirely different. Regarding the fact that there are other tenants, it is the landlords choice to select one of them. Nothing has been brought out by the respondent as to what is the accommodation with the other tenant, and why that would not be considered sufficient. In any case these considerations are not relevant. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant in Badri Lals case (supra). Keeping into view the above aspects, I am of the view that the trial Court went wrong in deciding issue No. 1 against the petitioner. The finding is (sic) reserved." 8. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant in Badri Lals case (supra). Keeping into view the above aspects, I am of the view that the trial Court went wrong in deciding issue No. 1 against the petitioner. The finding is (sic) reserved." 8. In this manner, the present revision has been filed by the tenant against the landlord Shri Madho Ram who died during the pendency of this revision and whose legal representatives have been brought on the record. 9. I have heard Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri D.C. Dhaula, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that this revision is without any merit. The main argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant was that it is established on the record that the son of the landlord was in Government service and, therefore, there is no question of his occupying the demised premises. Moreover, Madho Ram landlord has expired during the pendency of this revision, therefore, the need is not bona fide. 11. I am not in a position to subscribe to the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as the need of the landlord has to be seen on the date of the ejectment of the application. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that subsequent events can be taken note of, still, it is established that the need as stated by Shri Madho Ram itself in the ejectment petition was bona fide one. Shri Madho Ram sought the ejectment of the demised premises on the ground that he required the demised premises for the need of his son who has a family. 12. The submission raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant is devoid of any merit. The case set up by the landlord in the trial Court was that he required the demised premises for the personal use of his family which consisted of himself, his son, daughter-in-law and four children. 12. The submission raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant is devoid of any merit. The case set up by the landlord in the trial Court was that he required the demised premises for the personal use of his family which consisted of himself, his son, daughter-in-law and four children. His further case was that the accommodation available to him in Dayal Pura is very small which consisted of one room, kitchen with one court-yard and this accommodation is hardly sufficient for the entire family. 13. This Court is supposed to see whether the need propounded by the landlord is bona fide or not. If the need is not fanciful then weightage has to be given to the plea taken up by the landlord. In the present case, the stand of the landlord was that he required the premises for his personal necessity and for the necessity of his son who has a large family consisted of his wife and four children. 14. Admittedly, the accommodation in the possession of the landlord consisted of only one room and one kitchen and one court-yard and this accommodation keeping in view the strength of the family of the son of the petitioner, cannot be held to be sufficient. To this extent, there is a corroboration to the statement of the landlord. The witness examined by the landlord is an independent one. He is a neighbour and he has clearly stated that the accommodation in the possession of the landlord consisted of only one room and one kitchen. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the son of the landlord is in service, yet, there is no difficulty on the part of his son to reside with his father who may look after his children in a most satisfactory manner. The existing accommodation in the possession of the landlord is not sufficient for the children and wife of his son. 15. There is no cogent proof that the landlord has let out the demised premises after seeking ejectment of the other tenant or that the said accommodation was sufficient to meet the requirement of the landlord. 16. In this view of the matter, I do not see any merit in this revision and dismiss the same. 15. There is no cogent proof that the landlord has let out the demised premises after seeking ejectment of the other tenant or that the said accommodation was sufficient to meet the requirement of the landlord. 16. In this view of the matter, I do not see any merit in this revision and dismiss the same. However, the tenant is granted six months time to vacate the demised premises failing which it will be open to the landlord to file the execution proceedings and get the possession of the demised premises. There shall be no order as to costs.