Lal Chand vs Amar Chand

J.M. Tandon, J.—Amar Chand Respondent is the landlord of the house in dispute situate within the municipal limits of Tanda Urmar, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and Lal Chand Petitioner is in occupation thereof as a tenant @ Rs. 10/- per month. The respondeat filed an ejectment application against the Petitioner on the grounds that he required it for personal use and that the petitioner had impaired the value and utility thereof.

The Petitioner contested the application filed by the Respondent alleging that Daulat Ram, grand-father of the Respondent, had let out the house to him and after his death, Mulkh Raj father of the Respondent came to own it. The Respondent and his father wanted to dispossess him from the house and with this end in view he was compelled to execute the rent note dated 12th January, 1978 in favour of the Respondent. It was denied that the Respondent required the premises for his personal use and occupation.

The Rent Controller, Dasuya, vide order dated 15th June, 1981, held that the Respondent required the house for his personal use and, conseqnently, ordered the eviction of the Petitioner. The Petitioner having filed in appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 9th March, 1983 has filed the present revision petition.

Amar Chand respondent appeared as a witness for himself and stated that he owned no other house within the municipal limits of Tanda Urmar nor has he vacated any house therein since 1974. He was a Sergeant in Air Force and he retired in May, 1974. He has four children. His one daughter and one son are studying in the College and the other two in the school. The house in dispute is required for his personal requirement This house had fallen to his share in the family settlement. For the present he is living with his brother Virinder in the house which had fallen to latter''s share. In his cross examination, he stated that his father owned four houses. One house has been retained by his father which is occupied by the latter and Virinder. Another house has fallen to the share of Virinder which is occupied by him (respondent). The house in dispute which is in occupation of the Petitioner fell to his share and the fourth one is in occupation of a tenant

The Petitioner executed rent deed (Ex. A2) in favour of the Respondent on 12th January, 1978. The Respondent has retired from Air Force and is living in the house of his brother Virinder as a licensee. He has four children.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the rent deed Ex. A2 was got executed from him on the grounds that it would facilitate in the matter of payment of house-tax and that the house, in fact, continued to be owned by the father of the Respondent. The contention is without merit. In the first place, the attornment by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent has nothing to do with the payment of house-tax of the house. Secondly, this plea it conspicuously missing in the Written Statement. Thirdly, the Petitioner having executed the rent deed Ex. A2 in favour of the Respondent cannot raise the plea that the Respondent is not his landlord and the house in dispute does not belong to him.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Respondent has failed to prove that he does not own any other house within the municipal limits of Tanda Urmar and, therefore, the application for ejectment is liable to fail on this ground This contention is also without merit. The Respondent has clearly stated in his statement that he owns no other house within the municipal limits of Tanda Urmar and that he did not vacate any house therein since 1947. It is significant that the Respondent was not cross-examined on this point. It is, therefore, proved that the Respondent owns no other house within the municipal limits of Tanda Urmar.

Another point argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondent has failed to prove any family arrangement under which the house in dispute has fallen to his share. There is no force in this contention as well. The Respondent has stated that the house in dispute fell to his share in the family settlement The Petitioner did execute the rent deed of the house in favour of the Respondent on 12th January, 1978. If the house had not fallen to Respondent''s share in the family settlement then the Petitioner would not have executed the rent deed in his favour. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have rightly held that the house fell to the share of the Respondent in family settlement and that he bona fide requires it for his personal use.

In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The Petitioner is allowed three months'' time to vacate the house.