Daulat Ram and Others vs Smt. Roop Rani

J.M. Tandon, J.—Roop Rani Respondent is the owner land-lady of the rented land detailed in the petition and situate in the main bazar, Pathankot, which is in occupation of the Petitioners as ft tenant at Rs. 18/- per month. In june, 1977, the Respondent filed an ejectment petition against the Petitioners from the rented land on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and for personal requirement. The arrears of rent etc. was tendered by the Petitioners on the first date of hearing and the ground relating thereto was given up. The Petitioners denied that the Respondent re-quires the rented land bonafide for personal use and occupation.

The Rent Controller framed the following issues:

Whether the applicant (now Respondent) requires the permises in dispute for her personal use and occupation ?

Whether the previous application was withdrawn with pre-mission to file fresh application ? If so, to what effect ?

2-A. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present application ?

The Rent Controller vide order dated January 16, 1979, found all the issues in favour of the Respondent and consequently accepted the ejectment petition The Petitioners assailed the order of the Rent Controller before the Appellate Authority The findings of the Rent Controller under issues Nos. 2 and 2-A were not assailed before the Appellate Authority, who vide order dated March, 26 1980, affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller under issue No. 1 in favour of the Respondent and consequently dismissed the appeal. The petitioners have assailed the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in the present revision.

The Respondent had stated in her petition that she requires the rented land in dispute for personal use and occupation and she wants to erect a shop over it and start some business The Respondent appeared as a witness in support of her petition She stated that she is not in occupation of a vacant shop or vacant land (urban) in Pathankot She will construct a shop over the rented land in dispute. Her husband is dead and she has no male issue The rented land in dispute is situate in the main bazar. In her cross examination, she stated that she owns four other shops which are in occupation of the tenants. Her total monthly income from rent is Rs. 200/- which is not sufficient for her maintenance. Daulat Ram Petitioner also appeared at a witness. He stated that he has constructed a shop on the rented land in dispute and is running Karyana business therein. In his cross-examination he stated that he is in occupation of the rented land in dispute for the last 28/29 years and the husband of the Respondent is dead.

The husband of the Respondent was alive when the ejectment petition was filed. He died sometime thereafter. The Respondent owns four other shops which are in occupation of the tenants. Her total income is Rs. 200/- per month. The Respondent has no male issue. She has only one married daughter who is settled in Delhi. The res-pondent resides at Pathankot The rented land in dispute is situate in the main bazar.

The Kent Controller as also the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the plea of the Respondent that she requires the rented land in dispute for personal use and occupation is genuine The Respondent has averred that she will construct a shop on the rented land in dispute and run some business therein.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that the Respondent does not bonafide requires the rented land in dispute for personal use for the reasons that she is aged 60 years and she has no previous experience. It is also not proved that she has sufficient funds to construct the shop and run the business. The findings of the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority in favour of the Respondent that she requires the land in dispute for personal use and occupation is liable to be set aside The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is without merit.

The Respondent is about 60 years of age She is residing at Pathankot. Her only child (daughter) is married at Delhi. The rented land in dispute is situate in the main bazar. Her total income is Rs. 200/ per month which can hardly be considered sufficient for her maintenance. It is prudent on her part to supplement her income by running some business in a shop to be constructed by her. The rented land in dispute is suitable for this purpose in as much as it is situated in the main bazar. From the evidence led on the file there is hardly any justification to hold that the Respondent has no funds to construct the shop or to run some business therein The plea of the Respondent about personal requirement cannot be stamped fanciful, impracticable or fake The concurrent finding of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the point of personal requirement of the rented land in dispute in favour of the Respondent is unassailable and does not merit interference.

In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. The petitioners are allowed three months'' time to vacate the rented land in dispute.