Jetha Nand vs Ram Chander and Another

Falshaw, C.J.—This is a revision petition filed by a landlord who has failed to obtain an order for the ejectment of his tenant either from the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority.

The house in dispute is situated in the town of Gurgaon and it was an evacuee property occupied by Ram Chander and Ganpt Ram under the Custodian. The house was purchased in public auction by the landlord Jetha Nand in October, 1956 for Rs. 24,000.00 and in due course the allottees became tenants under him, but about a year after his title became complete by the delivery of the sale certificate the landlord instituted the ejectment proceedings on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, which was met by the tenants complying with the proviso in sub-section (2) of section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and of personal requirement, the grounds pleaded by him in this behalf being that the water and climate of Rewari where he had hitherto been residing did not suit him, that he needed the house because his son was studying in the Ahir College at Gurgaon and that he owned some land at Nuh which he could manage better from Gurgaon than from Rewari. Neither the learned Rent Controller nor the learned Appellate Authority found these grounds at all convincing and thus they were not satisfied that the landlord bona fide required the house for his own residence. In fact it was held that the landlord merely wished to get rid of the tenants from who in he was realising only the nominal rent fixed by the Custodian with a view to either letting the house to better advantage or selling it with vacant possession.

Among other things it was proved that the landlord had been living since 1947 in a house at Rewari which was allotted to him. He had allowed his brother Ude Bhan to occupy part of the house and subsequently that house had been purchased by Ude Bhan but Jetha Nand was still residing in a portion of it which the learned Rent Controller after inspecting the accommodation found adequate for his small family consisting of three members. However, the possession of other accommodation is only a ground for rejecting the application of the landlord when the accommodation is in the same urban area as the premises in dispute and the fact that the landlord is living in a small portion of the house owned by his brother at Rewari throws no light whatever on the bona fides of his brother''s house and that the brother would also like the extra accommodation for his own family.

It must be said at once that the reasons given by the landlord for wanting to move from Rewari to Gurgaon are not particularly convincing. There cannot be so much difference between the climate (sic) water in the two towns as to occasion any change and refer to the map shows that the petitioner''s lands at Nuh the mangement of which is his only occupation since he is not (sic) on any business in Rewari, are almost equidistant from the two towns. There may perhaps be (sic) instification for his wanting to live in his own house on the ground that his son can more conveniently study in a college at Gurgaon.

The fact is that it is very difficult indeed for the Court to arrive at a fair decision in a case of this kind. One would expect in the normal course that a displaced person who purchases a house for as much as Rs. 24,000.00 does so with the object of occupying it for the residence of himself and members of his family. He certainly does not pay such a considerable sum in order to realise the nominal rent which the tenants have been paying as allottees under the Custodian, which ordinarily is a grossly inadequate return on the capital invested. Thus when a landlord says that he does want to occupy the house himself, there should be no difficulty in the Court''s believing him unless cogent reasons exist for doubting his bona fides in this respect. The fact that landlord feels compelled, in order to meet the requirements of the Court to invent some unconvincing reasons to support his natural desire to occupy his own house, ought not in my opinion to be held against him. Indeed, in my opinion the only test of the genuineness of his intention of living in his own house after ousting his tenant is to see whether in fact he does occupy the house, and the law has provided a safeguard to tenants in this respect in that if the landlord who has obtained possession of his house after obtaining ejectment of a tenant does not occupy it within a certain period, the tenant can move the Court to be put back into possession. In my opinion in the present case there is no reason on the facts of the case for supposing that the landlord does not intend to occupy the house if he obtains possession of it and I accordingly accept the revision petition and pass an order for possession of the house in dispute in favour of the landlord against the tenant. The parties are left to bear their own costs and the tenant will be allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises.