Hari Chand Jhulka vs Kartar Singh

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—The tenant has directed this revision petition against the order dated April 3, 1987, of the appellate authority, Hoshiarpur, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ordering the ejectment from the house in dispute on the basis of the personal requirement of the landowner.

Briefly, the admitted facts are that Kartar Singh is the landlord of the house in dispute located within the urban area of Garhshankar, and had rented out the same to Hari Chand Jhulka at a monthly rent of Rs. 260/-. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he suffers from such a disease which requires regular medical treatment and he cannot come to Garhshankar for such treatment from his village Denowal Kalan Weak eye-sight and the old age was also stressed. Besides that the landlord respondent has no other residential building in the urban area of Garhshankar and had not vacated the same after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') The tenant resisted this application challenging the bona fide of the personal requirements of the landlord contending that he is having sound health. It was further averred that this application has been filed in order to pressurise the tenant to enhance the rent.

Learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord by holding that he is having his land and pacca house in village Denowal located at the distance of three kilometers from Garhshankar and could easily procure medical treatment while residing in that village. The statement of Dr. Tejinder Singh (A.W. 3) regarding the landlord being suffering from Cervical Spondylosis and Anaemia was also doubted as the prescription slips Exhibits A-2 and A-3 were not in the hand of the doctor. The appeal filed by the landlord before the appellate Court, Hoshiarpur, was accepted and the ejectment of the tenant was ordered holding that the personal requirement of the landlord to use and occupy the house was bona fide

During the pendency of this revision petition Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, for the tenant had filed the affidavit of the tenant besides the endorsement of the postman over Registered Cover about Kartar Singh landlord having permanently shifted to England; certificate to Ajit Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was also tendered in this regard. Kartar Singh tenant filed a counter affidavit contending that he has simply gone to England to see his son and had since returned from there. He himself appeared in the Court today during the course of arguments.

Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate for the tenant, while relying upon the findings of this Court in Rattan Chand Jain v. Charan Singh 1978 (1) R.C.R 265, contended that mere wish of the landlord to shift to the house in dispute is not sufficient unless there is element of need. Reliance was also placed in Mangat Ram v. Om Parkash and another (1983) (1) R.L.R. 190, in support of the proposition that on mere wish of the landlord to live in more comfort, that ejectment of the tenant cannot be ordered unless it is held that he really needs the disputed accommodation for his own occupation. He also relied upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor and General Traders, in support of his contention that subsequent events can be taken into consideration in a revision petition arising out of the proceedings under the Rent Control Act.

Mr. G.S. Grewal, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand supported the findings of the appellate authority contending that Cervical Spondylosis in old age may prove fatal during travelling, as the person loses the balance of his body and may meet with serious accident.

There is no dispute with the legal preposition that the landlord is not sole arbiter of his needs and his mere wish to live in more comfort without element of need is of no consequence for upholding the plea of personal requirement to use and occupy the house as held by S.P. Goyal, J. in Mangat Ram''s case (supra) as well as in Rattan Chand''s case (supra). It is not even disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that subsequent events can be taken into consideration on the revisional side by the Court in proceedings under the Rent Control Act, as held by the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu''s case (supra).

Now dealing with the subsequent event first it transpires that it is consistent case of the landlord that he has only one son who is residing in England Thus, the mere factum that the landlord has gone to England for seeing his only son cannot amount to his permanently settling down in England specially when he has since returned to India and has some land in village Denowala Kalan to look-after. So the contentions of the tenant in his affidavit or of the certificate of the Sarpanch or the report of the postman in this regard are of no consequence.

Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, tried to make out a case from the counter affidavit of the landlord to the effect that the has recovered from the Cervical Spondylosis as he has not specifically referred this disease in his affidavit. I fail to agree with him as the counter-affidavit was filed by him in order to rebut the version of the tenant that during the pendency of this revision petition the landlord had permanently shifted to England. He was not required and expected to reassert the details of his ailment. This omission on the part of the landlord in this regard is thus of no consequence to conclude that he had recovered from Cervical Spondylitis specially when the recovery from this disease in old age is very rare.

The question then arises whether the landlord really needs the house in dispute at Garhshankar for his effective medical treatment. In this regard, it transpires that Dr. Tejinder Singh (A.W. 3) had specifically deposed having examined Kartar Singh landlord and found him to be suffering from Cervical Spondylitis and Anaemia The perusal of the certificate Exhibit P-5 issued by this doctor also lends credence to his above referred version. The mere factum that prescription slips Exhibits A-2 and A-4 were issued by Dr. Gurcharan (sic) and Dr. Ajit Singh, is of no consequence as this doctor had identified the handwriting and signatures of those doctors and he had actually examined Kartar Singh. The disease Cervical Sponcylitis attacks the people in old age. So the contention of Dr Tejinder Singh that it is a serious disease and is likely to be aggravated during travelling sounds truthful. No doubt, the village of the landlord is located at the distance of about 3 K.M. from Garhshankar and at same distance from Banga Garhshankar metalled road, whereas the house in dispute is located at a distance of one kilometer from the Civil Hospital, Garhshankar and normally a person living in this village can come for medical treatment at Garhshankar but in view of the factum that the landlord is suffering from Cervical Spondylitis in old age, his anxiety to reside in town like Garhshankar where medical facilities are available can be well inferred as due to the loss of balance during travel, he can have fatal fall from the bus or other means of transport. The tenant admitted that the landlord used to accompany Tarsem Singh (AW2) whenever he collected rent from him (tenant) The learned Rent Controller doubted the bona fides of the requirements of the landlord on the ground that he could easily live with his relation Tarsem Singh at village Barnala which is at a distance of one kilometer away from Nawanshahar but this approach is not appreciable as courts cannot compel the landlord to live at the house of his distant relation like Tarsem Singh, who happens to be wife''s sister''s son of Kartar Singh. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that during odd hours at night conveyance like rickshaw, auto rickshaws and taxi-cars are available in a town like Garhshankar and such facilities are not available in the villages. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the landlord has moved this application for ejectment simply to pressurise the tenant to enhance the rent.

The contention of the learned counsel that medical facilities are available in village Denowal also is not acceptable as Kartar Singh (AW1) in his testimony had specifically stated that no medical facilities are available in the village while Hari Chand tenant has vaguely asserted that two doctors are practising in this village but had failed to give their names and other particulars.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no scope for interfering with the findings of the appellate Court. This revision petition stands dismissed. There is, however, no order as to costs. The tenant is allowed three months'' time from today to vacate the premises in order to make necessary arrangement of his accommodation.