Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 104 (HP)

JAGDISH CHAND v. SHASHI PAUL

2003-05-12

M.R.VERMA

body2003
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, (hereafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 8.11.2002, passed by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Kangra at Dharamsala, thereby confirming the order dated 6.3.2001 passed by the learned Rent Controller (I) Kangra, directing ejectment of the petitioner tenant (hereafter referred to as the petitioner) from the premises occupied by him as such. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereafter referred to as the respondent) filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the premises specified in the site plan filed with the petition as "ABCD", situate on Mission Road, Ward No. 4, Kangra (hereafter referred to as the tenanted premises) on the grounds (i) that these premises are required by him for continuing education of his daughters, as at present his family is residing at a distance of 18 kms. from Kangra in Village Basnooh, rendering it difficult for his daughters to come daily to Kangra for the purpose of education and he does not own any other building in the concerned urban area and (ii) that the tenant is in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,800 for the period May 1997 till the date of filing of the petition. 3. The petitioner contested the claim and averred in his reply that the tenanted premises belonged to one Ram Saran who died issueless and the respondent in collusion with the revenue staff got the mutation sanctioned in his favour though he is not the sole legal heir of the deceased. The requirement of the respondent as alleged in the petition has been denied. The averment that petitioner was in arrears of rent has also been denied. 4. The respondent filed rejoinder wherein the grounds of defence as taken by the petitioner in the reply has been denied and the claim as made out in the petition has been reaffirmed. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether the applicant is entitled for the decree of eviction, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled for the rent of Rs. 6,800 at the rate of Rs. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether the applicant is entitled for the decree of eviction, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled for the rent of Rs. 6,800 at the rate of Rs. 400 per month from the period May, 1997 to September, 1998 for 17 months, as alleged? OPR. 3. Whether the premises is bona fide required by the applicant? OPP. 4. Whether the premises were let out by one Shri Ram Saran at the rate of Rs. 150 as alleged? OPR. 5. Whether the applicant is not the owner of the premises as alleged? OPR. 6. Relief. 6. Vide judgment dated 5.3.2001, the learned Rent Controller decided issues 1 and 3 in favour of the respondent, issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the petitioner whereas issue No. 2 was decided partly in favour of the petitioner and as a consequence of findings on issue Nos. 1 and 3, the eviction petition was allowed and petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the tenanted premises. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Kangra at Dharamsala by the impugned judgment and the order passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed. Hence this petition by the petitioner assailing the eviction order on the ground of bonafide requirement of the respondent as the eviction on the ground of his being in arrears of rent has become inexecutable because of payment of the arrears of rent. 8. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not the owner of the premises nor is the landlord within the meaning of the Act. To substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel referred to the sale deed Ex. AX whereby the respondent has purchased only a share of the land on which the tenanted premises are standing, but there is no reference in the sale deed that any portion of the building standing thereon has also been purchased by him. Therefore, it was contended that the respondent is not the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and has no locus standi to institute the eviction petition. 9. Therefore, it was contended that the respondent is not the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and has no locus standi to institute the eviction petition. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent had contended that the tenanted premises had been purchased by the respondent in the year 1988 vide Sale Deed Ex. AX and thereafter he is the owner thereof and the premises were let out to the petitioner by him in April 1990, by which time, the earlier owner had ceased to have any right, title and interest in the tenanted premises by virtue of sale in favour of the respondent, therefore, for all intents and purposes, the respondent is the owner /landlord of the tenanted premises. 10. A perusal of the copy of the sale deed Ex. AX reveals that Ram Saran, the then owner of land comprising Khata No. 1, Khatauni No. 1 to 9, measuring 811.04 square metres, sold 1 /3rd share therein to the respondent for consideration alongwith the rights appurtenant thereto. As per the latest copy of jamabandi Ex. PA, the residential house on a part of the land in question though shown as owned by various co-sharers, is shown in the possession of the respondent as a co-sharer. As per the contents of para 3(a) and (b) of the eviction petition, it is claimed that the landlord and tenant of the tenanted premises are the persons as mentioned in the heading of the petition which gives the particulars of the respondent as the applicant and those of the petitioner as respondent. The petitioner, in his reply, has not disputed these contents, The petitioner in his statement has claimed that the premises were let out to him by Ram Saran in the year 1992. The claim of the respondent vide para 14 of the petition however, is that premises were let out to the petitioner by him in April 1990 on the basis of an oral agreement and in his written reply, the petitioner has not disputed these contents. Thus, in his reply, the petitioner has admitted that the tenanted premises were let out to him in 1990 by the respondent. Even in cross-examination of the respondent (PW-1), it was put to him by the petitioner that he had purchased the land and the house from Ram Saran in the year 1988 which has been admitted by the respondent. Thus, in his reply, the petitioner has admitted that the tenanted premises were let out to him in 1990 by the respondent. Even in cross-examination of the respondent (PW-1), it was put to him by the petitioner that he had purchased the land and the house from Ram Saran in the year 1988 which has been admitted by the respondent. Thus, it is the suggested case of the petitioner himself that the respondent had purchased the land and the tenanted premises from Ram Saran in the year 1988. In the examination-in-chief, the petitioner (RW-1) has stated that he had been paying the rent of the premises to Uttam Chand. Said Uttam Chand is none other than the brother of the landlord as emerges from the statement of Gurdev Singh (RW-2), inasmuch as according to this witness, said Uttam Chand is the son of the sister of Ram Saran and admittedly so is the respondent. In view of his pleadings any evidence led by the petitioner to the contrary being at variance with the pleadings, could not be looked into and, thus, has rightly been rejected by the authorities below. 11. In view of the above discussion, it is fully established that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises and, therefore, has the locus standi to institute the eviction petition. The concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below in this regard, thus, do not call for any interference. 12. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that to prove his bona fide requirement, the respondent was required to specifically plead (i) that the tenanted premises are bona fide required by him for use, (ii) that he is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned and (iii) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the petition, but there is utter lack of pleadings in this regard, therefore, the eviction petition deserves to be dismissed on this sole ground. To substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel has relied on Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas, AIR 1980 SC 1218. 13. To substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel has relied on Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas, AIR 1980 SC 1218. 13. In Onkar Naths case (supra), the Honble Apex Court held as under: "It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case, the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely, (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements. 3. The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken care to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute. A mere affidavit at a late stage of the litigative process can hardly be adequate to meet the mandate of Section 13(3) of the Act. In these circumstances, we are constrained to allow the appeal." 14. A perusal of para 18(a)(i) of the petition shows that the landlord has specifically averred that the building which is residential is required for use by his family members and for providing education to his daughters he does not occupy any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application and that his claim is bona fide. In view of these pleadings, it cannot be said that the respondent had not pleaded the requisite constituents of the ground for eviction or that his pleadings are inadequate or insufficient to make out a cause of action in his favour. All the requisite averments disclosing the cause of action in favour of the respondent are duly made in the petition, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid case is of no help to the petitioner and the contention raised for the petitioner, thus, is not sustainable. 15. All the requisite averments disclosing the cause of action in favour of the respondent are duly made in the petition, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid case is of no help to the petitioner and the contention raised for the petitioner, thus, is not sustainable. 15. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the material on record, it could not be held that the tenanted premises are bonafide required by the respondent for use as alleged. Therefore, the findings of the authorities below that the premises are required by him as alleged are absurd and liable to be reversed. 16. It may be pointed out that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below cannot be disturbed in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 24(5) of the Act unless it is shown that such findings are unreasonable, absurd and based on no evidence. 17. As already stated hereinabove, the claim of the respondent is that the tenanted premises are required by him for the purpose of imparting better education to his daughters at Kangra. At present, his family is staying 18 kms. away from Kangra making it difficult for his daughters to come to Kangra every day. The respondent (PW-1) has stated so in his statement. He has specifically stated that he wants to get his daughters educated at Kangra where the education standard is better. He has further stated that except the tenanted premises, he had no other building in the concerned urban area and that he has not got any tenant evicted from the premises during a period of 5 years immediately preceding the filing of the petition. He himself is serving in Delhi and has denied the suggestion that his children reside with him in Delhi. He has explained that in view of his financial position, he cannot keep and impart education to his children in Delhi, Kishan Dev, Patwari (PW-2) and Rattan Chand Clerk, Municipal Committee, Kangra (PW-3) have corroborated the statement of the respondent to the extent that within the urban area of Kangra, the respondent has no other house. 18. The petitioner (RW-1) himself has admitted that the respondent has two daughters who are studying. He has further admitted that the respondent has a house in village Basnoor. 18. The petitioner (RW-1) himself has admitted that the respondent has two daughters who are studying. He has further admitted that the respondent has a house in village Basnoor. He has further admitted that the family members of the respondent are residing at Basnoor and the children coming from Basnoor to Kangra have to suffer difficulties and harassment. He has shown his ignorance and has not specifically denied that the tenanted premises are required by the landlord for his personal use as claimed. 19. In view of the above discussion, the only conclusion which could have been arrived at on the basis of the material on record is that the tenanted premises are required by the respondent for use as alleged. Therefore, the concurrent findings of the authorities below on this count cannot be said to be absurd or perverse but are correct, therefore, do not call for any interference. 20. As a result, there is no merit and substance in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.