Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 699 (PNJ)

Sardari Lal v. Swaran Lata

2003-05-14

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner has sought ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The Learned Rent Controller has allowed such petition and directed the tenant to vacate the premises. However, the said order of ejectment has been set aside in appeal. 2. One Dr. Mohan Dutt was inducted as a tenant by the petitioner vide rent note dated 17th January, 1978 at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. Dr. Mohan Dutt has died during the pendency of the ejectment petition and the respondents are his legal heirs. Petitioners sought the ejectment of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground that the tenants are in arrears of rent and that the demised premises are required by the landlord for their personal use and occupation. Accommodation already in possession of the landlord is insufficient. It was submitted that the landlord alongwith his sons are living in joint family. Subhash son of Sardari Lal is married having three children. He has to live separately from Sardari Lal landlord. Similarly. Parveen Kumar landlord was married in the year 1979. He has two children. He also wants to separate himself from Sardari Lal landlord. Necessary ingredients of not occupying or having any other residential building in the urban area and the landlord has not vacated any such building in the urban area, were also pleaded. 3. The Learned Appellate Authority dismissed the ejectment petition holding that in the year 1977 Sardari Lal filed an application for eviction which was withdrawn on 24th January, 1978. The rent which was Rs. 25/- per month was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month and thus the landlords actually did not require the premises for their own use and occupation. It was thus found that the requirements of the landlord which is now sought to be pleaded were in existence even in the year 1978 when he withdrew the petition and thus it cannot be said that the landlord bona fide requires the demised premises. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record and find that the findings recorded by the appellant authority suffers from material illegality and irregularity. Findings recorded by the Court below are based upon conjectures and surmises and not sustainable in law. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record and find that the findings recorded by the appellant authority suffers from material illegality and irregularity. Findings recorded by the Court below are based upon conjectures and surmises and not sustainable in law. 5. Previous ejectment petition was filed by Smt. Kailash Wanti and Sardari Lal on 20th July, 1977 on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent as well as the tenant has forcibly trespassed the room adjoining room towards east of the portion in dispute. A grievance was also made that the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the building. Petitioners have also pleaded that the portion of the house in dispute is bona fide required by the applicants for their own use and occupation. However, no details of the occupation were provided. The said ejectment petition was withdrawn on 24th July, 1978. Thereafter, the present ejectment petition has been filed on 15th June, 1983 after the death of Kailash Wanti with Parveen Kumar as the Lr of Kailash Wanti. The petitioners have pleaded that the demised premises are bona fide required for Subhash Chand married son having two children. It is further pleaded that the petitioner No. 2 i.e. Parveen Kumar legal heir of Kailash Wanti was married in the year 1979 and is also having two children. Therefore, he wanted to separate himself from petitioner No. 1 as it is difficult for the petitioner No. 1 and his family to accommodate in the present residential house. Reasoning given by the learned Appellant authority that there was no change in the circumstances so as to entitle the landlord to file another ejectment petition after withdrawing the same is, thus, not borne out from the record. The petition for ejectment has been filed after 5 years of the withdrawal of the first ejectment petition. In the intervening period, not only Kailash Wanti has died but her son has got married and also got two children. The circumstances of the landlord have changed. Even in respect of petitioner No. 1 the requirement of additional accommodation has increased. 6. Sardari Lal has appeared as AW1 and also produced site plan of the demised premises Ex.P3. He has also produced the site plan of the house already in his possession Ex.P2. The circumstances of the landlord have changed. Even in respect of petitioner No. 1 the requirement of additional accommodation has increased. 6. Sardari Lal has appeared as AW1 and also produced site plan of the demised premises Ex.P3. He has also produced the site plan of the house already in his possession Ex.P2. It is apparent from a perusal of the site plan Ex.P2 that the said house has only one room, one baithak, one store and one verandah in which his son Subhash Chand alongwith his two children who were 8 years and 4 years of age were residing. In the said house, his another son Kamal Kumar who is unmarried, who was about 23-24 years old at that time, was also residing. He has also deposed that his another son Darshan Lal is married and has got three children, is posted at Hoshiarpur. He comes to visit him off and on. He has also got three married daughters who also visit him in the house. He has thus deposed that the house shown in site plan Ex.P2 is insufficient to keep him and his married son Subhash Chand, along wit his family, and unmarried son Kamal Kumar. To support the landlord, Subhash Chand married son of petitioner has appeared as AW2. He corroborated the statement of his father. Petitioners have also produced AW4 Chander Shekhar a neighbour as well as Madan Mohan AW3, who has prepared site plans Ex.P2 and P3. 7. For the tenant, Bhupinder Singh appeared as RW1 and Baldev Kumar, a neighbour appeared as RW.2. The said witnesses have deposed that the accommodation in possession of the petitioners is sufficient. Apart from such statement, the respondents have produced on record the previous ejectment petition and the orders passed thereon to contend that once the petitioners have withdrawn the previous ejectment petition, they are disentitled to seek ejectment on the ground that the demised premises are required bona fide. 8. The family of the petitioner No. 1 consists of three sons out of them two are married and four married daughters at the time of filing of the petition. One of the sons is residing in a nearby town of Hoshiarpur whereas the petitioner has sought ejectment from the demised premises for settling his married son Subhash Chand having children. The family of the petitioner No. 1 consists of three sons out of them two are married and four married daughters at the time of filing of the petition. One of the sons is residing in a nearby town of Hoshiarpur whereas the petitioner has sought ejectment from the demised premises for settling his married son Subhash Chand having children. Apart from the requirement of married son, the petitioner requires the premises for his visiting son and the visiting married daughters. On the other hand, petitioner No. 2 also requires the premises since after the withdrawal of the previous ejectment petition. He has married and has got children. The finding recorded by the appellate authority that on account of withdrawal of the previous petition, the petitioner have disentitled themselves from seeking ejectment is wholly untenable. In Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, 2002(5) S.C.C. 397 the Honble Supreme Court has held that the expression "for his own use" has to be assigned a wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfil the requirement, he must himself physically occupy the premises, the requirement of a member of the family or of a person to whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord, can be considered the requirement of the landlord for his own use. 9. Keeping in view he principles laid down in the said judgment, I am satisfied that the respondent has proved that he requires the demised premises for his own bona fide personal use. Findings given by the appellate authority are clearly against the established principles of law and in fact is misreading of evidence as a whole. Consequently, I al low the present revision petition and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and direct the tenant to put the petitioners in possession of the demised premises within a period of one month from today.