Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 902 (PNJ)

Kanwarjang Singh v. Gurmukh Naunihal Singh

2003-07-08

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the demised premises are required for personal bona fide use of requirement of the landlord. 2. The respondent is owner of the house situated at Sahabad Markanda which was leased to the petitioner in the year 1977. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground that he has not paid the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.10.1993 to 31.7.1996 alongwith house tax and that he requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation as he wants to shift at Sahabad for looking after his agricultural land. 3. In reply to the petition, the petitioner filed written statement and alleged that the landlord has a house at Mohali where he is living with his wife and sons. There is no logic for seeking the ejectment of the petitioner. 4. After the parties led their evidence, learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition but the learned Appellate Authority found that the premises are required by the respondent for his bona, fide personal use and occupation. The learned Rent Conroller dismissed the petition holding that the relations of the landlord with his daughter-in-laws are not strained or that the accommodation in his possession is sufficient. However, the learned Appellate Authority found that the landlord has not sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground that his relations with his sons and daughters-in-law are strained or that the accommodation in his possession is insufficient. Rather he has sought the ejectment on the ground that he wants to shift to Sahabad in order to cultivate and manage his agricultural land. The learned Appellate Court found the house at Chandigarh is owned and occupied by two sons of the landlord who were residing along with their families therein. House at Mohali had been rented out by his wife who is its owner. While arriving at conclusion the learned Appellate Authority relied upon Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by LRs. v. Chaganlal Sunderji and Co., 1 2000 H.R.R. 8 and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,2 (1999-1)121 P.L.R. 805 (SC). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the landlord has taken a false plea regarding the rate of rent. While arriving at conclusion the learned Appellate Authority relied upon Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by LRs. v. Chaganlal Sunderji and Co., 1 2000 H.R.R. 8 and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,2 (1999-1)121 P.L.R. 805 (SC). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the landlord has taken a false plea regarding the rate of rent. Since the landlord has not been able to prove the plea of rate of rent, therefore, the landlord cannot succeed even on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. He has relied upon Mehar Chand and Anr. v. Tilak Raj Girdhar,3 A.I.R. 1982 Punjab and Haryana 144; Fakir Chand and Anr. v. Bhagwan Dass,4 (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 129 and Lok Nath v. Khanaya Lal and Ors.5 1983(2) R.L.R. 269. The said judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondent are the judgments based upon appreciation of evidence in those cases. The Court has disbelieved the statements of the witnesses in the facts and the circumstances of those cases. The doctrine falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus is not the doctrine applicable in India. When a part of the evidence of a witness is found to be unreliable, the court should scrutinise the remaining part cautiously and if the same is found trustworthy, the same can be accepted. This maxim has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence. 6. In S.G.P. Committee v. M.P. Dass Chela (dead) by LRs.,6 (1998-2)119 P.L.R. 547 (S.C.) it has been held that it is not open to any court to sift the deposition of any witness and accepted a part thereof while rejecting the other part. 7. Similarly in while considering the credibility of a witness in election dispute, the court held that a witness being friendly with falsehood does not destroy the acceptability of their testimony to the extent it accords wjth other authentic documentary material and reliable verbal testimony. The Honble Supreme Court remarked that experience proves the wisdom of scepticism in assessing oral evidence in Court. The Honble Supreme Court remarked that experience proves the wisdom of scepticism in assessing oral evidence in Court. In the words of Osborn (The problem of proof - Albert S. Osborn, PP 22, 23, New York, Matthew Bender and Co. 1926 - quoted in (2) ibid, P.226). "The astonishing amount of perjury in courts of law is a sad commentary on human veracity. In spite of the oath, more untruths are probably uttered in court than anywhere else. This deviation from veracity ranges from mere exaggeration all the way to vicious perjury. Much of this untrue testimony grows directly out of human nature under unusual stress and is not an accurate measure of truth-speaking general. In order to shield a friend or help one to win in what is thought to be a just cause, or because of sympathy for one in trouble, many members of the frail human family are inclined to violate the truth in a court of law as they will not do elsewhere." 8. Therefore, even if the testimony of the landlord in respect of rate of rent is not accepted that does not necessarily makes him unreliable witness even in respect of his personal requirement. 9. It is admitted by the petitioner that the landlord has agricultural land situated at Sahabad. The landlord has no residential accommodation at Sahabad except the demised premises. The requirement of the landlord cannot be said to be fanciful.Since the landlord has desired to manage and cultivate his agricultural land it is not necessary that he should continue to lease out the same as earlier. In these circumstances the requirement of the landlord to seek ejectment is not a mere desire but landlord needs the premises for his requirement. The learned Appellate Authority has considered the various aspects of the case in detail. The view of the Appellate Authority is the possible view in law. There is no material illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 10. However, the petitioner is granted two months time subject to his furnishing undertaking before the Rent Controller, within a period of one month that he shall hand over actual physical vacant possession of the premises and that he shall pay rent for the period of his occupation.