Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 813 (PNJ)

Krishna Devi Jaswal v. Shanti Rani

2009-04-28

K.KANNAN

body2009
Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. There is no representation on either side. The case is of the year 1992 and the petition itself has been filed on 23.10.1986. I have therefore considered it not fit to adjourn the case but pass orders on merits on perusal of records. 2. The tenant who was directed to be evicted by the Appellate Authority in appeal by the landlord is the revision-petitioner before this Court. Before the Rent Controller, the bona fide requirement had been found against and the reversal of the judgment is the cause for revision before this Court. 3. The only contention that was urged, although other grounds had also been taken by the landlord, was that the property was required for her own occupation and the remaining property in which the landlord was living was hardly sufficient for comfortable living. Her contention was that she had become old and had a very weak eye sight and therefore she was being assisted by another person namely Vijay Kumar who was residing with her along with his wife and two children. Admittedly Vijay Kumar was not in any way related to the old lady but it was only contended that she was dependent on Vijay Kumar and his wife for helping her in her daily routine. 4. Even in the petition filed by the landlord, she had admitted to the fact that earlier she had filed a petition against the very same tenant for eviction that resulted in compromise where the tenant was given back a room on the left side of the house at the ground floor and also allowed to retain the kitchen while the landlord was allowed to be given possession that was originally in the hands of the tenant two rooms on the left side of the building at the ground floor. This according to her happened on 07.04.1983. Since she had no kitchen in the property that was left back to her, she required property bona fide for her own occupation and conveniently living. 5. The landlords requirement was denied in every aspect by the tenant and it was contended that the petitioner was not residing in the other portion of the building as contended by her but she was living away with her sister and brother-in-law Jiwan Dass in House No. 109, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh. 5. The landlords requirement was denied in every aspect by the tenant and it was contended that the petitioner was not residing in the other portion of the building as contended by her but she was living away with her sister and brother-in-law Jiwan Dass in House No. 109, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh. The bona fides of the requirement was questioned by the tenant by pointing out that she had vacated one room on the ground floor in the hands of a tenant by name Billa Ram on the ground of personal necessity but she had rented out the same to Shri Vijay Kumar and later to Sukhdev Singh and then to Gurdial Singh and lastly to Kewal Krishan Chawla. 6. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition finding that the requirement of the landlady for convenient enjoyment along with another family consisting of Vijay Kumar, his wife and two children, is impermissible by law so long as the other persons were not shown as members of the same family. According to his reasoning, the landlord could not treat persons who were not really members of the family as such and the need expressed and the insufficient space made out could be seen in the context of a more convenient living with persons who are not members of the same family. The Court found that Vijay Kumar was not even an adopted son and the requirement of the demised premises for accommodating him could not be termed as the petitioners requirement. This line of reasoning was rejected by the Appellate Authority, who observed that if the landlady was old and she had weak eye sight and having no child of her own, if she was compelled to take the help of Vijay Kumar and his wife and for that purpose she was allowing them to stay, the arrangement would require additional space. According to the Appellate Court, it could not be stated that such a requirement was not bona fide. The Appellate Authority found support from the testimony of the witness Jiwan Dass who stated that Vijay Kumar was treated as a member of her own family and that it was legitimate for her to seek ejectment of tenant because just the two rooms without any kitchen could not be said to be sufficient for the growing requirements of the family of Vijay Kumar. If the contention of the landlord had been that a property which she had bargained by the compromise to secure two rooms at the ground floor from his tenant was found to be not sufficient over a period of time and that she was therefore requiring the premises in the occupation of the tenant, it could probably be contended that the requirement of the landlord was genuine. But if the landlord places the only fact that Vijay Kumar, his family and their two children were also living with her and the space was not sufficient for their requirements, then the ground mentioned under the Act of a personal need of the landlord could not be said to be satisfied. The Act sets out the requirements of the landlord in case of the residential building to be a requirement for his own occupation and it does not even include a reference to a family under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The reference to the family is made only in relation to the requirement of a landlord who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union and is required for the occupation of his family under Section 10(3)(a)(i-a). The explanation to the said sub-section refers to the family as meaning such persons of the landlord who ordinarily live with him and are dependent upon him. The Section does not itself make a reference to the family but still it has been a consistent interpretation of this Court that the requirement of the landlord for any member of the family is always considered as satisfying the personal necessity of the landlord. An interpretation that has come through the decisions of this Court and which do not find any mention in the Act cannot be allowed to be subverted any further to include even persons who may be acquainted with the landlord, for, that would mean opening the flood gates and enlarging the requirement to include not merely the bona fide requirement of the landlord himself/herself but also of persons whom the landlord considers as worthy companions for a comfortable living. The personal necessity in the manner spoken to by the landlord that the property shall be necessary for accommodating persons like Vijay Kumar, his wife and his two children also, is not, in my view, a requirement which the law could allow. The personal necessity in the manner spoken to by the landlord that the property shall be necessary for accommodating persons like Vijay Kumar, his wife and his two children also, is not, in my view, a requirement which the law could allow. The reasoning adopted by the Rent Controller in that regard rejecting the landlords contention is more proximate to the headway that the Courts have made to consider the claims of the landlord to include the needs of blood relatives who are dependent on the landlord. The reasoning adopted by the Appellate Authority, in my view, does not accord with the judicial approbation of what the landlords personal necessity shall admit of. 7. The order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority is therefore set aside and the order of the Rent Controller is restored. The revision petition is consequently allowed but there shall be however no directions as to costs.