Dinesh Kumar vs Sh. Laxman Dass Aggarwal

J.M. Tandon, J.—Lachman Dass Aggarwal respondent is the owner of House No. 16-B, Old Tribune Colony, Ambala Cantt. which is in occupation of Dinesh Kumar petitioner as a tenant. On April 18, 1979, the respondent filed a petition for for ejectment of the petitioner on the grounds of non payment of arrears of rent and personal requirement. The respondent averred in the petition that he was serving as Under Secretary to Government, Haryana at Chandigarh and he is due to retire on February 29, 1980 He wants to settle at Ambala Cantt after retirement and as such he needs the house in occupation of the petitioner for his own use and occupation.

The petitioner tendered the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. He denied in the written statement that the respondent bona fide required the house in dispute for his own residence. It was alleged that the respondent wanted to dispose it of alter getting it vacated

The Rent Controller framed the following issue :--

Whether the petitioner (now respondent) requires the tenancy premises for his own use and occupation ?

The Kent Controller found the issue against the respondent and consequently dismissed his petition vide order dated October 24, 1979. The respondent filled an appeal and the Appellate Authority vide order dated April 18, 1980, accepted the same, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and further ordered the eviction of the petitioner. It is against this order of the Appellate Authority that the present revision is directed.

The respondent was Under Secretary to Government Haryana at Chandigarh in April, 1979, when he filed the petition for the ejectment of the petitioner. He retired on February 29, 1910. The respondent was in occupation of Government accommodation at Chandigarh during the tenure of his service. He owns two houses at Ambala Cantt. the one is in occupation of the petitioner and the other (House No 13-B) is in occupation of another tenant. The respondent is not in occupation of any residential building in the Urban area at Ambala Cantt. nor has he vacated any such building in the said Urban area since 1949.

The respondent in response to the letter received from Chander Mohan of Ambala Cantt. informed him by letter dated April 19, 1979, (Exhibit R-5) that he owned two houses at Old Tribune Colony, Ambala Cantt. Nos. 13-B and 16-B) and that he is prepared to consider the offer for their sale if reasonable price was offered. Chander Mohan in his letter dated April 17, 1979, had desired to purchase one of the houses owned by the respondent. Another letter on the same lines was written by the respondent on April 20, 1979 (Exhibit R 3) to Iqbal Chand Bhatia. The respondent wrote third similar letter dated April 23, 1979, (Exhibit R-2) to Mr. Jain. In the letter Exhibit R-2 it was specifically written that the respondent wanted to sell one of the two houses owned by him at Ambala Cantt.

The Rent Controller placed reliance on the letters Exhibits R-5, R-3 and R-2 written by the Respondent to various parties in support of his inference that the respondent did not require the premises in dispute for his personal occupation and he is in fact wanted to sell the same The Appellate Authority has accepted the explanation given by the respondent that he had a mind to dispose of one of the houses to procure funds for the marriage of his daughter which in fact took place on June 17, 1979. The Appellate Authority has thus come to the conclusion that the respondent has a genuine need of the premises in dispute for his personal occupation

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the approach of the Rent Controller in the matter is correct and it has been wrongly negatived by the Appellate Authority. I am not impressed by his contention, it is true that in April, 1979, the respondent had desired the sale of one of his two houses at Ambala Cantt. It is proved that the daughter of the respondent was in need of money in April, 1979, for celebrating the marriage of his daughter. The thrust of the argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the letters referred to above prove that the respondent wants to get the house in dispute vacated for its sale at a higher price. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in April, 1979 when the respondent wanted to sell one of the two houses, both were in occupation of the tenants It is thus clear that the respondent wanted to dispose of the house while the tenant thereof remained in its occupation In this background, it would be reasonable to hold that the desire of the respondent to sell the house in April, 1979, was linked with the marriage of his daughter which in fact took place in June 1979.

The respondent has lived at Chandigarh in Government accommodation. He has since retired. He owns property at Ambala Cantt. He has stated that he wants to shift to the place. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent requires the premises in dispute for his own personal use and occupation.

In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises in dispute.