Shakuntla Devi vs Darshan Kumar and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is land lady''s petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The landlady Shakuntla Devi sought ejectment of her tenants from the house in dispute claiming that her father-in law Basheshar Nath was the owner of the demised house and he had rented out the same to Om Parkash tenant who died subsequently and the Respondents are in occupation of the premises as his heirs and legal representatives. The premises were let out vide rent note dated 6.5.1971 on a monthly rent of Rs 30/- The ejectment was sought, inter alia on the grounds that she bonafide requires the premises for her own use and occupation; that the tenants have impaired the value and utility of the demised premises ; and that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was further pleaded that at present the landlady is occupying a rented house belonging to one Raj Kumar Jain who is pressing hard for eviction of the same. Moreover, even that rented house was an old building and not fit for human habitation. In the written reply the said allegations were controverted. The tenants even denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

The learned Rent Controller found that the landlady has failed to prove that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. According to the learned Rent Controller, she never pleaded that the accommodation at present in her occupation was not sufficient for her needs. It was further found that the building is not unsafe and unfit for human habitation and at the most it was a case of repairs. On the question of materially impairing the value and utility of the premises, the learned Rent Controller took the view that the landlady has failed to prove that the tenants have committed such acts which have impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the Appellate Authority maintained the said findings of the learned Rent Controller and thus, affirmed the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this petition in this Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that from the evidence on the record, particularly the report of the Local Commissioner Exhibit A 2, it is amply proved that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the findings of the authorities below were wrong, illegal and against evidence It was further contended that bonafide requirement of the landlady has been found by the authorities below but she has been non-suited on the ground that she was already in occupation of the rented premises belonging to Raj Kumar Jain. According to the learned Counsel the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo (1980) 82 P. L. R. 613 was explained lateron by Full Bench in Ramesh Kumar v. Atma Devi (1985) 87 P. L. R. 751, and in view of that judgment the landlady was entitled to eject her tenants because the rented premises were not sufficient for her needs nor the building was fit for human habitation. As regards the necessary ingredients, it was submitted that nothing was concealed from the Court and that being so, it could not be held that the necessary ingredients were not impleaded. In support of this contenion, reference was made to Duggi Veera Venkata Gopala Satya-narayana v. Sakala Veera Raghavaiah 1986 (4) S. V. L. R. (C) 455.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant evidence on the record. From the evidence on the record particularly, from the report of the Local Commissioner Exhibit A 2 dated 11.1.1982 it is amply proved that the building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The local commissioner who was a lady advocate, categorically stated in her report that "the house infact is in dilapidated and bad condition. The roofs are supported on wooden pillars and it was after walking through those pillars cautiously, that I carried out the inspection. The house is an old one and its floor is under construction. Fresh flooring with cement is going on at the spot and is not completed yet." She also appeared in the witness box in support of this report as A W. 1. The said report has been brushed aside by the authorities below on the ground that the parties have not examined any building expert on this point. This approach is wholly misconceived, wrong and illegal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary there was nothing on the record to show that the report was wrong in any manner. Not only that, according to the Appellate Authority it was a case of replacing roofs, and, therefore, it amounted to repairs and not structural alterations. This again is misconceived notion. This was never the case set up by the tenants nor they ever moved any application u/s 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for repairs. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case the only conclusion from the evidence on the record is that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

As regards the personal requirement of the landlady, it has come in evidence that she does not own any other residential building in the urban area concerned. At present she was residing in rented premises which was not suitable to her and the landlord was pressing for her ejectment That being the situation, the landlady was entitled to eject her tenants in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Karnail Singh''s case (supra) which was explained lateron by the Full Bench. It has been observed by the Full Bench that "if the premises in occupation of the landlord are not sufficient/suitable for his needs or he has some other reasonable cause to vacate the same, the landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant." Thus, the finding of the authorities below in this behalf was also unwarranted from the evidence. The bonafide requirement is thus, fully proved.

In view of the above discussion, this petition succeeds. The orders of the authorities below are set aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenants. However, they are allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if, any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with the further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of said period the vacant possession will be handed over to the landlady and the rent for such period will be paid in advance by 10th of every month.