Ram Kumar vs Dharam Vir

J.M. Tandon, J.—Ram Kumar Petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute which consists of one room and a Khola at its back in Mohalla Pandhian, Darshani Gate, Ward No. 5, Jandiala Guru, which is in occupation of Dharambir Respondent as a tenant at Rs. 3/- per month On September 6, 1978, the Petitioner filed an ejectment petition against the Respondent on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, personal requirement and the premises having been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation as also its use for nonresidential purposes by the Respondent.

The arrears of rent claimed by the Petitioner was tendered by the Respondent on the first date of hearing. The Rent Controller vide order dated April 16, 1980, upheld the plea of personal requirement set up by the Petitioner. The remaining grounds for seeking ejectment of the Respondent failed. The ejectment application was consequently allowed and the Respondent was directed to vacate the premises. The Respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which has been allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated September 28, 1982, on the ground that the Petitioner has one-sixth share in the house which at one time was owned by his father in Jandiala Guru and that he was in occupation of rooms adjacent to the premises in dispute which are otherwise owned by his wife. The order of the Rent Controller was set aside and the ejectment application of the Petitioner dismissed. It is against the order of the Appellate Authority that the present revision has been directed.

The Petitioner is residing in two rooms owned by his wife. These rooms are adjacent to the premises in dispute. The father of the Petitioner owned a house in Jandiala Guru He died during the pendency of this litigation The Petitioner has inherited one sixth share in the ancestral house. A portion of the ancestral house was in occupation of one Prithpal Singh who vacated it. It was rented out again by the mother of the Petitioner. The family of the Petitioner consists of himself, his wife and four children including two children born during the pendency of the litigation.

The Petitioner is the owner of the premises in dispute whereas two rooms adjacent thereto are owned by his wife. It is true that the Petitioner would continue living with his wife though he cannot reside there in his own right. The two rooms owned by the wife of the Petitioner are surely not sufficient for a reasonable living of the Petitioner, his wife and four children. So far as the ancestral house is concerned, he owns one sixth share therein as a result of the death of his father during the pendency of this litigation The Petitioner cannot reside in the entire ancestral house as a matter of right. At best he can seek partition of his own one sixth share therein It has not been proved that the ancestral home has since been partitioned. This apart, the partition of the ancestral house which will represent one-sixth share of the Petitioner would hardly be sufficient for his residence alongwith his family.

The Rent Controller inspected the premises in dispute as also the rooms in occupation of the Petitioner. It was found that the premises in dispute are lying vacant. The Respondent is residing in his newly built house.

The Rent Controller has found that the Petitioner is in need of the premises in dispute as two rooms adjacent thereto occupied by him and his family are not sufficient This finding of the Rent Controller is correct and has been wrongly negative by the learned Appellate Authority.

In the result, the revision is allowed, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority set aside and that of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the Respondent restored No order as to costs.