Kamlesh Kumari vs Savitri Devi

H.S. Thakur, J.—The Petitioner/tenant is a teacher at Nurpur, District Kangra, whereas the Respondent/land-lady is a retired teacher. The Respondent retired from service during the year 1973. She is the owner of house No. 228/2, Mohalla Rampuri, ward No. 2, Nurpur Town. She filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Nurpur, seeking the eviction of the Petitioner u/s 14(3)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, mainly on the ground that she required the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation. According to the Respondent, she purchased this house during the year 1963 when she was serving as a school teacher. The premises were let out to the Petitioner, as the Respondent was living far away from Nurpur. The Respondent on her retirement required the premises for her own use and occupation. The Petitioner, however, disputed the claim of the Respondent that the premises were required by her bona fide for her use and occupation. Several issues were framed by the Rent Controller. The Petitioner, however, as observed by the appellate authority, pressed only one issue, that is, about the bona fide requirement of the land-lady. The Rent Controller as also the appellate authority have come to the conclusion that the premises in dispute are bona fide required by the Respondent.

It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Respondent had purchased the premises in dispute when the same were already occupied by the Petitioner as a tenant. The evidence on record, however, negatives the contention of the Petitioner. Even on 25th May, 1984, while I was considering this contention of the Petitioner, it was found that the Petitioner in her statement had herself deposed that the Respondent had purchased the house in dispute in 1963 and that the same was rented out to the Petitioner in 1965. This conclusion is reflected in the order of that date as well.

As such, the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent had purchased the premises in dispute knowing fully well that the same were occupied by a tenant, is negatived. In her statement, the Respondent has deposed that she asked the Petitioner to vacate the premises in 1972 but the Petitioner promised to vacate the same after Respondent''s retirement. It is further stated by her that the Petitioner had been telling the Respondent that she would vacate as soon as her house is constructed and that in 1978 the brother of the Petitioner also met the Respondent and promised to vacate the premises during the year 1979. These facts have not been even disputed in the cross-examination of the Respondent as found by the Courts below.

The Respondent has categorically stated that she did not possess any other house at Nurpur. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Respondent has a house in Nurpur in which she has some share. The Respondent though admitted that there was a house in Nurpur Town belonging to her brother but she was not in possession thereof and had also no share therein. This fact is further corroborated by R.W.3, who has stated that the Respondent has no other house apart from the house in dispute. Similarly, R.W.4, the Tax Inspector of Nurpur Municipal Committee has stated that the Respondent has no share in the house owned by her brother and the tax is also being paid by her brother, Shri Bhagwan Dass. As such, it is not proved that the Respondent owns or possesses any other house within Nurpur. The Respondent has explained how she was forced to live after retirement for some time in Delhi, Pathankot and with her daughters at Gangath and also with her brothers. It may be observed that in case she is allowed by her relations to live with them as a guest or as a relation, does not mean that she does not bona fide require the premises for her use and occupation. At any rate, she cannot be forced to live at the mercy of her relations. As such, I have no reason to differ with the view taken by the Rent Controller and upheld by the appellate authority that the requirement of the Respondent is bona fide.

The result of the above discussion is that the revision petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

At this stage, it is prayed by Mr. S.S. Kanwar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that a reasonable time be given to the Petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the Respondent. Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondent, contends that since sufficient time has already been gained by the Petitioner in retaining the possession of the premises, no further time be given to the Petitioner. However, keeping in view the fact that these days it is not so easy to procure accommodation, I deem it proper and expedient to give three month''s time to the Petitioner for putting the Respondent in vacant possession of the premises in dispute. The Petitioner shall pay the entire rent to the Respondent, till that time.