Kesar Das vs Bakhshi Ram and Another

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—This is a rule directed at the instance of the tenant against the order of ejectment passed in favour of the landlords by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

The landlords Bakhshi Ram and his wife Smt. Bachni bought bouse No. 2183 in Kacha Bazar, Ambala Cantt in the month of September 1959. Two months'' later in November 1959 a portion of this house was given on rent to the petitioner Kesar Das at Rs. 44/- per mensem. The tenant later applied for fixation of fair rent which was fixed at Rs. 4.93 nP. Almost simultaneously the landlords brought the present application for ejectment u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act''.

The application for ejectment was brought on two grounds-

(1) non-payment of rent; and

(2) personal requirements of the landlords.

We are no longer concerned with the first ground of ejectment as the arrears of rent were paid at the first hearing. The Rent Controller took the view that the accommodation with the landlords was insufficient for their needs and made an order of ejectment accordingly. The tenant having failed in his appeal before the appellate authority has new preferred this petition for revision.

Mr. Nand Lal Dhingra the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the landlords having leased the suit premises almost immediately after they had acquired it by purchase must be deemed to have vacated it without sufficient cause. In order to appreciate this argument reference may be made to the relevant provision of law which is contained in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act. A landlord under sub-section (3) may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession -

(i) in the case of a residential building, if -

(a) he requires it for his own occupation;

(b) he is not occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned; and

(c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area;

*****

All these three conditions must be present before an order of ejectment can be made. Mr. Dhingra has not challenged the findings of the Rent Controller or the appellate authority that the landlord have insufficient accommodation with them at present and the premises are required for their own occupation. It is not challenger given that under sub-clause (b) the landlords are not occupying any other residential building in the urban area Mr. Dhingra has convassed before me that the landlord having voluntarily leased the demised premises after having acquired it by purchase must be deemed to have vacated it without sufficient cause. If that contention were to prevail every purchaser of property would be precluded from claiming ejectment if the whole or a portion of it is given out subsequently on lease In the context it cannot be said that the demised property which has been leased out to a tenant after its purchase must be deemed to have been vacated by the landlords as it could have been kept by him for his personal occupation. The requirement of a landlord are not static and keep on changing. What was sufficient for the landlords in 1959 may be wholly inadequate in 1982 and so for as this aspect of the case is concerned the findings of both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority are conclusive that the present accommodation with the landlords is insufficient. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Dhingra on an unreported decision of Dulat J. in Milkhi Ram v. Dhallu Ram and others C.R. No. 277 of 1959, Civil Revision No. 277 of 1959, decided on the 12th of December, 1960. What happened in that case was that the landlord obtained orders of ejectment concerning two shops in Karnal on the ground that he required those for his own occupation and immediately afterwards let out these shops to certain other tenants. On application made by the land-lord for vacation by the tenant of another shop, it was found by the authority under the Rent Control Act that Milkhi Ram could not claim ejectment on the ground of personal need. Dulat J. affirmed the conclusion of the appellate authority and I do not see how the ruling of that decision can possibly assist the tenant-petitioner in this case. The order of ejectment obtained in respect of other demised property cannot be equated with the leasing of a part of the property from which ejectment is now sought. It is not the tenant''s case here that the landlords have other property with which they had parted deliberately or after having obtained an ejectment order it had been given over to other tenants. The facts in Civil Revision No. 277 of 1959 are wholly different and distinguishable from those in the present case and the ratio of that decision cannot be invoked for the assistance of the petitioner, as contended for by Mr. Dhingra. In my view there is no force in this revision which fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. At the request of his counsel, I grant three months'' period from to-day to the petitioner to vacate the premises.