Bhiwani Textile Mills, Bhiwani vs Ram Lal Rajgaria

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

The landlord Ram Lal Rajgaria sought the ejectment of his tenant M/s Bhiwani Textiles Mills from the demised premises which were a residential house and were given on rent in April, 1984, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,400/-, including taxes. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the grounds that the landlord required the premises, in question, for his own use and occupation and that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility thereof. The stand taken by the tenant was that the landlord did not require the premises, in question, for his own use and occupation as the accommodation in his occupation already was sufficient for him and his family and that he had also another residential building at Bhiwani. It was denied that the tenant impaired the value and utility of the demised premises, as alleged. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had fully proved that he required the tenanted premises for his own use and occupation bona fide. It was also found that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises by constructing a pucca shed of a large size in the open space of the premises by installing a monoblock pumping set with the Municipal water-supply and also by connecting the air-conditioner with the three phase main meter with open and kutcha wiring Consequently, the eviction order was passed on March 26, 1987. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter called the Act) requires that the Controller, shall satisfy ''himself that the claim of the landlord was bona fide. According to the learned Counsel, the premises were originally let out in the year 1979. Later on, the rent was enhanced from time to time. Ultimately, in March, 1984, the premises were got vacated, but again in April, 1984, the landlord rented out the premises at the enhanced rate of Rs. 2,400/- per month. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, in the circumstances, the application filed on October, 17, 1985, for the ejectment of the tenant was not bona fide because if the landlord was really in need of the premises for his own use and occupation, he would not have let them out in April, 1984, again, when the premises were vacated in March, 1984. The learned Counsel further contended that the alleged construction in the form of a shed raised by the tenat did not fall within the mischief of Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act, as it did not materially impaire the value and utility of the demised premises. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Om Pal Vs. Anand Swarup (Dead) by Lrs.,

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord-Respondent submitted that the landlord''s family consists of 12 members, out of whom two are married sons. One son had been married in the year 1986 and, therefore, taking into consideration the family members of the landlord, his requirement was most bona fide. The premises were let out to the tenant in April, 1984. At that time, he was occupying a house consisting of two rooms belonging to the T.I T. where the landlord was in service. The rent paid by him was only Rs. 151/2 per month. Now during the pendency of the revision petition, he has retired and, therefore, he was no more entitled to the said accommodation. In these circumstances, argued the learned Counsel the requirement of the landlord was most bona fide, and has been rightly so found by the two authorities below

As regards the impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises, the learned Counsel submitted that according to the report of local Commissioner, Exhibit A. 1, dated October 17, 1985, the tenant has raised a pucka shed. Its roof is supported by three iron girders whose width is 2" � 4". The girders have been fixed in the wall of the house, in dispute. The length of a big girder is 177" and that of a small girder is 80". The length of the shed is 230" and the width is 177". Thus, argued the learned Counsel, taking into consideration the construction raised by the landlord, it has been rightly found by the authorities below that it has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Sudershan Kumar v. Tejinder Singh 1987 (2) Rent C. R. 330. It was also contended that Sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act provides safeguards to the tenant in case the landlord does not occupy the premises for the purpose fur which their possession was taken then the tenant can take back possession thereof from the landlord.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

The mere fact that the premises were let out in April, 1984, after getting the same vacated in March, 1984, does not mean that the landlord''s requirement was not bona fide. His requirement is obvious. Earlier the landlord was occupying the premises belonging to the T. I. T. and pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 151/2 per month Since he has retired from service and that house Is to be vacated, so his requirement to occupy the demised premises in these circumstances has been rightly found to be bona fide by both the authorities below. I do not find any illegality or impropriety therein as to be interferred with in the revisional jurisdiction. The landlord in his statement has explained the circumstances as to why the premises were let out again in April, 1984, after getting the same vacated in March, 1984.

As regards the impairment of the value and utility of the premises, it has been recently held by the Supreme Court in Om Pal v. Anand Swarup 1, that when a construction is alleged to materially impair the value or utility of a building, the construction should be of such a nature as to substantially diminish the value of the building either from the commercial and monetary point of view or from the utilitarian aspect of the building. Keeping the said principal in view, on the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the nature of the construction raised by the tenant, as found by the local Commissioner in his report, Exhibit A.I, dated October 17, 1985, is of a permanent nature and is on a large scale which has materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises as contemplated u/s 13(2)(iii) of the Act Thus, on the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below as to be interfered with in the revisional juridiction.

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three month''s time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller, within a month along with an undertaking in writing, that after the expiry of the said period of three months, vacant possession of the premises would be handed over to the landlord and the rent for the said period will be paid every month regularly.