Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2478 (PNJ)

Smt. Tara Rani v. Smt. Chander Lekha

2010-08-30

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Smt. Chander Lekha, respondent, instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking eviction of Aschraj Lal Sibal. It is the case of the petitioner that Ascharaj Lal Sibal and his wife have died and they are now represented by legal heirs who all are settled outside Ambala Cantt., where the demised premises is situated. 2. In the eviction petition, it is stated that the property was rented out @ Rs.20/- per month and the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 10.1.1985 to 9.5.1986. Smt. Chander Lekha stated that she was living with her mother-in-law in the ancestral house of the husband. She was having three children, besides her husband. She expressed the desire to live separately from the joint family in the property owned by her, where Shri Ascharaj Lal Sibal was a tenant. She further pleaded that in the ancestral house, the married brothers of her husband are also residing with their families and the accommodation in her occupation was only two rooms which was insufficient for the requirements of the family of the petitioner. 3. In the written statement, it was stated that Chander Lekha had purchased property from S/Shri Surinder Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Nanu Mal, Basheshar Nath, Muni Lal, etc. and the sale deed in her favour is not a valid instrument and, thus, there is no relationship of landlady and tenant. It was further stated that the personal necessity pleaded, is not genuine and the house where she is residing with her mother-in-law is a palatial house and she also holds many other properties in the City. After conclusion of the pleadings, Rent Controller formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the respondent evicted from the disputed premises on the allegations contained in the petition? OPP 2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable as-alleged in the preliminary objection No. 1 of the written reply? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner is liable to be stayed as alleged in the preliminary objection No.2 of the written reply? OPR 4. Whether the sale made by previous owner is not valid, if so, its effect? OPR 5. Whether there is any relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties? OPP 6. Relief. 4. OPR 3. Whether the petitioner is liable to be stayed as alleged in the preliminary objection No.2 of the written reply? OPR 4. Whether the sale made by previous owner is not valid, if so, its effect? OPR 5. Whether there is any relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties? OPP 6. Relief. 4. Rent Controller held that since arrears of the rent have been paid, therefore, the ground that the tenant is to be evicted for non-payment of the rent, was not available, and the only issue which survived was whether the ground of personal necessity was made out or not. Rent Controller, took into consideration the fact that the landlady had not produced the site plan of the premises in which she is residing with her mother-in-law; there is no document to prove that she is a licencee of her mother-in-law and she could not deny that the property where she is residing with her mother-in-law is constructed in 10 acres of land. Reliance was further placed upon the testimony of Ramesh Kumar, Building Clerk, Municipal Council, who appeared as RW1, and stated that as per the record, house No.l26-B is in the name of Soma Devi (mother-in-law of the respondent-landlady). Further reliance was placed upon the testimony of Subhash Chand, RW2, who stated that the property was not required for personal use of the landlady as other properties were owned by the father-in-law of the landlady. Subhash Chander Sibal stated that he is employed in Chandigarh; his family is residing at Ambala Cantt. He stated that property No.5560 is also being used for residential purposes by the landlady but was unable to say whether in the said property, restaurant is being run or not. However, this witness stated that in the property owned by the landlady, 4-5 families can live comfortably. 5. From the perusal of the judgment of Rent Controller, it is evident that he has considered only the deposition of the witnesses examined by the tenant; without reference to the deposition of landlady. Rent Controller, while referring to the witnesses, lost sight of the fact that the landlady appearing as AW1 had specifically stated that she was having one Jeth (elder brother of the husband) and two devars (younger brothers of the husband) and they all reside in the same house. Rent Controller, while referring to the witnesses, lost sight of the fact that the landlady appearing as AW1 had specifically stated that she was having one Jeth (elder brother of the husband) and two devars (younger brothers of the husband) and they all reside in the same house. Rent Controller concluded that need of the landlady to shift in her own house is not made out and had dismissed the ejectment petition. 6. Aggrieved against the same, the landlady had filed an appeal. 7. The Appellate Authority took the facts in right perspective and noticed them as under:- "14. Landlady Chander Lekha wife of Shiv Kumar, aged 35 years, herself appeared into the witness box as AW1 and deposed that the respondent was her tenant at the rate of Rs.20/- per month and the disputed premises was required for her familys use. Her family consisted of herself, her husband and three children. Her statement was recorded on 10.3.1987. At the time her eldest child was aged ten years and the youngest was aged six years. 15. The landlady deposed that she was residing along with her mother-in-law in house No.126, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt. as a licencee and her relations with her mother-in-law were strained. She was possessing only two rooms out of which one was living room and other was being used as store-cum-kitchen. Three brothers of her husband along with their families, her mother-in-law and father-in-law were already residing in the said premises No.126, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt., and as such she required the tenanted premises for her personal use. She deposed that the premises in her possession were insufficient. 16. During cross-examination the landlady deposed that in the house of her mother-in-law, there were only four rooms, in which, three brothers of her husband along with their families and in-laws were living. A suggestion was given to this witness that premises No.l26-B, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt. was constructed in an area of about five acres and the owners raised construction of several shops in the open area of that premises. She could not tell anything about it. She denied that she was the owner of premises No.l26-B, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt." 8. A suggestion was given to this witness that premises No.l26-B, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt. was constructed in an area of about five acres and the owners raised construction of several shops in the open area of that premises. She could not tell anything about it. She denied that she was the owner of premises No.l26-B, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt." 8. The Appellate Authority further held that in house No.l26-B, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt., owned by Smt. Somawati, mother-in-law of the landlady, there were only 4-5 rooms which were highly insufficient for the five families residing there. The Appellate Authority believed in the statement made by the landlady that she along with her husband and four sons is residing in her mother-in-laws house. The Appellate Authority further held that it can not be comprehended as to whether the landlady and her husband would get any share in the property after the death of mother-in-law or not. The Court further rejected the contention of the tenant that the family of the landlady was having four properties for residential purposes. The Court held that one property belonged to mother-in-law, where she was residing with her husband, along with brothers of the husband of the landlady; the second property was the one in which the petitioner was the tenant; third building was owned by the husband, along with others, and from where he was running the business thus, the third property was not a residential building, and the fourth building was a factory and was owned by the father-in-law of the landlady. The Appellate Authority held that the personal necessity of the landlady was made out. While doing so, the Appellate Authority concluded as under:- "For the above reasons, I conclude to hold that there was sufficient evidence to believe the statement of the landlady that she required the demised premises for her bona fide requirement and her family member. The learned lower court failed to appreciate the evidence and legal position correctly. The finding of the lower court cannot be sustained in any way. Hence, finding on issue No.1 to the contrary is set aside. Issue No.l is now decided in favour of the landlady and against the tenant." 9. Shri Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, has stated that the respondent-landlady, throughout her life, had lived with her mother-in-law and, therefore, personal necessity pleaded by her, is not bona fide. Hence, finding on issue No.1 to the contrary is set aside. Issue No.l is now decided in favour of the landlady and against the tenant." 9. Shri Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, has stated that the respondent-landlady, throughout her life, had lived with her mother-in-law and, therefore, personal necessity pleaded by her, is not bona fide. It is submitted that the property owned by mother-in-law was in 5 acres. This Court cannot deny this fact, that only 4/5 rooms were built in 5 acres land where all the family members were residing, i.e., the mother-in-law, family of the landlady and three families of the brothers of the husband. 10. There is a remarkable shift in the life-style of the people in this era. The need and outlook of Indian family has changed. There is a transformation from joint family to the independent way of living and such a transformation has already taken place, with a preference for nucleus family over a joint family. The landlady was having four sons. The eviction petition was instituted on 24.3.1987. By now, the children might have grown up, with their families to support. Therefore, growing need of the family also justifies the ground of personal necessity pleaded in the eviction petition. Furthermore, as stated earlier, the tenant and his wife have expired. The daughters and sons of the petitioner, who have been impleaded as legal heirs, are residing in Canada, United States of America, Chandigarh and Panchkula. No body from the family of the tenant, as stated by Shri Gorakh Nath, Counsel for the respondent, is residing at Ambala Cantt. 11. Taking all the above circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.