Kashmir Chand vs Bhagwan Dass and others

J.M. Tandon, J.—Bhagwan Dass and his two brothers Respondents own the premises in dispute consisting of a room, verandah and court-yard in Moballa Inderpuri, (sic) Kashmir Chand Petitioner is in occupation thereof as a tenant In October, 1978, the Respondents filed a petition for eviction of the Petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from April 1, 1976, and personal requirement of Bhagwan Dass Respondent The arrears of rent was tendered, though not at the rate claimed by the Respondents. The Rent Controller, Sirsa, vide order dated February 25, 1981, held that the arrears of rent tendered was short of house tax and Bhagwan Dass bonafide required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. The Petitioner was held liable to be evicted on both the grounds. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller The Appellate Authority vide order dated September 10, 1982, dismissed the appeal holding that the Petitioner was not liable to pay house-tax and Bhagwan Dass Respondent bonafide required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. The appeal was consequently dismissed It is under these circumstances that the Petitioner has filed the present revision assailing the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

The plea raised by the Petitioner in the eviction proceedings against him is that the Respondents let out the vacant plot to him for tethering buffaloes in 1968 and he had constructed a room at his own cost in 1969. It is also his plea that the rent agreed to be paid for the vacant plot was Rs. 50/- per month and later on it was increased to Rs. 70/- per month The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the room and the verandah of the premises in dispute had not been constructed by the Petitioner and that he had been let out the room as it stands by the Respondents for residence. There is hardly any justification to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below on this point.

Bhagwan Dass Respondent appeared as a witness and stated that the premises had been let out to the Petitioner in March/April, 1971 for residence He was living with his father in the later''s house. He wanted to live separately because of constant quarrel between his wife and mother. He denied that the vacant plot had been let cut to the Petitioner for tethering cattle. The Petitioner was keeping a buffalo when the premises had been let out to him. He was in occupation of one room and a kitchen in his father''s house. Kashmir Chand Petitioner in his statement stated that the vacant plot was let out to him in 1958-69. He built the room, a Baithak and a verandah at his own cost apart from a Pucca Manger. He had taken the plot for running the Dairy. He did not own a house of his residence. He had started the dairy work in 1968-69. He was running Ahart shop before 1968-69. Ahart shop is still running. He denied that he had only one buffalo when he had taken the premises in dispute on rent.

It is highly improbable that the Petitioner after taking the vacant plot would make substantial investment thereon for making a room (Baithak) and verandah. The Petitioner did not take permission either from the Respondents or local authority for the construction alleged to have been made by him. He is residing in the premises since the time it was let out to him. He is running Ahrat shop. He may be keeping a buffalo. The evidence led does not establish that he ever had a regular dairy business. The findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the premises Lad been constructed by the Respondents and had been let out to the Petitioner for residence and not for dairy business are affirmed.

Bhagwan Dass Respondent is living with his father. The house of his father is commodious. Bhagwan Dass Respondent and his father both have stated about the quarrel between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law. Bhagwan Dass Respondent is not living in the house of father as of right. He owns the premises in dispute. It has again been rightly held by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that Bhagwan Dass Respondent bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Respondents claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month whereas the Rent Controller held that the Petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 70/- per month. The prayer of the Respondents for ejectment of the Petitioner should be declined because they had made a false claim about the rate of rent. Reliance has been placed on Tek Chand v. Wadhwa Ram (1981) 83 P. L. R. 49, and Mehar Chand v. Tilak Raj Girdhar (1982) 84 P. L. R. 13. The contention is without merit. The ratio of these authorites can hardly be made application to the facts of the instant case. It has been proved that Bhagwan Dass Respondent is not in occupation of the house of his father as of right. In other words, he is residing as a licensee in that house. He is in occupation of one room and one kitchen. He wants to shift to his own house on, account of constant quarrel between his wife and mother. The exaggerated claim regarding rent made by the Respondents does not adversely affect the genuineness of the claim of Bhagwan Dass about his personal requirement.

In the result, the revision fails and it dismissed. The Petitioner is allowed three months time to vacate the premises in dispute.