Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 173 (PNJ)

Bhajan Lal v. Roshan Lal

2002-02-07

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2002
Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition in 1998 claiming eviction of the petitioner-tenant alleging that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. On the first date of hearing, the petitioner-tenant tendered arrears to rent along with interest and costs. Accordingly, the ground of non-payment of rent was not pressed. The only question agitated between the parties was the claim of the respondent-landlord based on his personal bona-fide necessity. It would be pertinent to mention that the premises in question comprises of two chobaras which the petitioner-tenant is admittedly using for running his business of embroidery. 2. The Rent Controller accepted the claim of the respondent-landlord vide his order dated 2.2.2000 and ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, on 14.3.2001 rejected his appeal. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, the petitioner-tenant has impugned the findings of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority on the issue of bona-fide personal necessity before this Court. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has three sons, namely, Naval Kishore, Tilak Raj and Bharat Bhushan and one daughter. Presently the respondent-landlord is living with one of his sons, namely, Naval Kishore at Jalandhar. His aforesaid son is in occupation of a rented premises which comprises of three rooms. In those three rooms, Naval Kishore, his five daughters, his wife and one son are residing and in addition to the family of Naval Kishore, the respondent-landlord as well as his wife live with him. Even the second son of the respondent-landlord, namely. Tilak Raj along with one of his sons lives with the said Naval Kishore in the same premises. 4. The respondent-landlord initiated the present ejectment proceedings claiming the two chobaras in question, expressing his desire to live in the same. Independently of the ejectment petition filed against the petitioner- tenant, he has filed another ejectment petition against the tenant who is in occupation of a shop portion on the ground floor of the same premises. It is the intention of the respondent-landlord to use the shop portion as a clinic and earn his livelihood therefrom and to live in the two chobaras in occupation of the petitioner-tenant along with his wife. It is the intention of the respondent-landlord to use the shop portion as a clinic and earn his livelihood therefrom and to live in the two chobaras in occupation of the petitioner-tenant along with his wife. To authenticate the fact that the respondent-landlord is in an effective position to run a clinic, he has produced positive evidence to affirm that he is a Registered Medical Practitioner and is entitled to practice electro-homoeopathy. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant read out the statement of Roshan Lal respondent-landlord in Court. A perusal of the statement reveals that a large number of family members are living in the premises of Naval Kishore. It also reveals that the accommodation in his possession comprises of only three rooms. It would be important to mention that in his aforesaid statement Roshan Lal, the respondent-landlord, has expressly asserted that his son Naval Kishore has discarded him and has desired him to contribute expenses for living with him. It is for the aforesaid reason that the respondent-landlord has filed the instant petition as well as the other ejectment petition, referred to above, so as to be able to earn his livelihood and live separately from his son Naval Kishore who has discarded him and has demanded living expenses from him. The aforesaid part of the statement of Roshan Lal i.e. the respondent-landlord has not been disputed inasmuch as no suggestion was put to him during the course of his cross-examination. That being so, it is evident that the respondent-landlord is living with his son Naval Kishore at his mercy i.e. at the sufferance of his own son. In such circumstances, the desire of the respondent-landlord to live separately from his son is bona-fide. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, that the respondent-landlord requires the premises for his own bona fide personal necessity.