Smt. Chandra Wati vs Narain Dass

P.C. Pandit, J.

1 .This order will dispose of two connected Civil Revision petitions Nos. 64 and 67 of 1968. Counsel for the parties agree that the decision in the former revision will govern the latter as well. So I will refer to the facts of Civil Revision No. 64 of 1968.

House No. 2962/2 is situate in Amritsar City and it was an evacuee property. In January 1965, it was purchased by Shrimati Chandravati, Petitioner, in an open auction for Rs. 6,000/-. After the bid WAS confirmed, a sale-deed was executed by the Government in her favour in the month of February of the same year. Narain Das (Respondent in Civil Revision No. 64 of 1968) and Har Sahai (Respondent in Civil Revision No. 6/ of 1968) were the tenants under the Custodian of two separate portions of this house. In June 1965, Chandravati filed separate applications for ejectment against the tenants on a number of grounds, but, we, in this revision, are concerned with only two of them. Firstly, that the premises were bona fide required for the use and occupation of the landlord herself and, secondly that the house was unfit for human habitation and the landlord intended to rebuild it.

The application was contested by the tenant on a number of grounds, which gave rise to the following issues:

Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ?

Whether the applicant requires the premises in dispute for bona fide use and occupation ?

Whether the Respondent has committed such act whereby the value and utility of the premises has diminished ?

Whether the Respondent by his act and conduct, has become the nuisance for the neighbourhood ?

Whether the premises in dispute are unfit for human habitation and the applicant intends to re-build it ?

Whether the Respondent is protected from ejecting for a period of two years u/s 29 of the Act 44 of 1954 ?

4 The Rent Controller found that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the applicant required the premises in dispute for her bona fide u?e and occupation; that that applicant had failed to prove that the tenant had committed such acts whereby the utility and value of the premises had diminished; that the landlord could not establish that the house was unfit for human habitation or that she intended to rebuild its that the tenant by his act and conduct had not become a nuisance for the neighbours; and that thee tenant was protected from being ejected for a period of two years u/s 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. On these findings, the application for eviction was accepted, but it was directed that the eviction order would not be operative for two years from the date of the confirmation of the sate, i. e. 25th January, 1965.

Against this decision, the tenant went in appeal before the learned appellate authority. It confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller that the house in dispute was fit for human habitation and that the landlord did not require it for re-erection. It was held that the landlord had failed to prove that she bona fide required the premises for her use and occupation. The appellate authority further found that the Tehsildar, Sales", who had sold the house in question in favour of the landlord, had no authority to transfer the property on behalf of the Government. It was only the Managing Officer, who could do so. That being the case, the sale in question did not confer any title on the landlord, so as to create the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in view of these findings, the appeal was accepted and the application of the landlord for eviction was rejected. Against this order, the present revision has been filed by the landlord.

6 It may be stated that the learned Counsel for the tenant frankly admitted that the finding given by the appellate authority regarding issue No. 1 was not correct, and further that the Rent Controller had rightly found thai there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

The main question that was agitated before me was regarding issue No. 2 and the point for consideration is whether the appellate authority had correctly reversed the finding on this issue given by the Rent Controller.

It is undisputed that Chandravati had five sons and four daughters. Out of them, two sons and two daughters were married, and the third son Hari Om also got mimed during the pendency of the eviction application Her husband was doing some business at Bombay. Two sons and one daughter were living in Bombay and the third son, Ashok Kumar, who was studying in Amritsar in the Matriculation, left the school and went to Bombay only in April 196 but he was living in Amritsar when the eviction application was filed in June 1965. The fourth son, Hari Om, lived in Amritsar and with him were one brother and one sister, who were both minors. The brother was not of sound mind and the sister was studying in the third standard. In Amritsar, they were living in the ancestral house of the landlord''s husband. It is a three storeyed building, but consists of only seven rooms in all. There were four living rooms and the rest were small ones which could be used as a store kitchen and bathroom. There is somewhat similar accomodation in the house in question, which was purchased by the landlord and it was situated just opposite the ancestral house of her husband. Hari Om is doing some private service in Amritsar. It appears on the record that his father is doing some small business in Bombay. He does not pay any income tax and has a small residential room there, in which he carries on his business as well. The ancestral house being in Amritsar, he and his children are likely to come there every now and then and stay there. Even if Chandravati was living in Bombay with her husband, she too has her minor children living in Amritsar for whom she is expected to come very often especially when one of them is insane. The accommodation in possession of Hari Om consists of only four rooms in which he has to accommodate himself, his wife, his brother and his sister His two married sisters are also likely to come to the ancestral house to meet him and their parents whenever they are in Amritsar. One has also to take into consideration that some accommodation is needed for the guests whenever they arive. After marriage Hari Om is also likely to have his own children Keeping these facts in view the present accommodation with the landlord is insufficient as held by the Rent Controller. In such like cases, the Rent Controller has to see to the genuine desire of the lanlord to occupy the house for his or her own residence. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the application had been made by the landlord with an ulterior motive either to sell the house or let it out on a higher rent after getting it vacated from the present tenant. It has not even been suggested that the landlord had filed this application in order to put pressure on the tenant to increase the rent. Her need seems to be genuine and, ordinarily, it is for the landlord to judge his or her needs, unless it could be shown that the application had been filed with some ulterior motive. The Rent Controller should normally give weight to the statement on oath made by the landlord in that behalf. It is his decision on that point which should Prima facie prevail and the Rent Controller should not ordinarily become the Judge of his needs, unless material had been brought on the record by the tenant to show that the desire of the landlord to occupy the house for his own residence was not genuine and the eviction application had not been filed bona fide. Ample safeguards have been provided for the aggrieved tenant u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, where it is stated that when a landlord, who had obtained possession of a house from the tenant for his own occupation, did not himself occupy it for a continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining possession, the tenant, who had been evicted, could apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing that he should be restored the possession of such house and the Rent Controller would then make an order accordingly.

The learned appellate authority, while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 2, observed that the landlord had not dared to come in the witness-box to swear that she really intended to shift her residence from Bombay to Amritsar and, therefore, needed the house in dispute for her own use and occupation. This failure on her part, according to the learned Judge, raised a strong presumption against her bona fides, and it was not possible to believe that she really wanted to shift to Amritsar by giving up her residence in Bombay where her husband was carrying on business alongwith his children.

While making these observations, the appellate authority over- looked the fact that the landlord''s son Hari Om was pursuing this eviction application in Amritsar on her behalf and he came into the witness- box as A. W. 6 and offered himself for cross-examination. It is also a fact that he was actually cross-examined at quite some length- More- over, it was not necessary for the landlord to completely shift from Bombay to Amritsar and it was only tlvn that she could get the house vacated for her occupation. If the accommodation in the ancestral house of her husband was not sufficient for her children and she had purchased the house in dispute, which was just opposite to that house, for fulfilling her needs, she could get it vacated for the use and occupation of her children, including minors. As regards her genuine needs.

The appellate authority had further stated that the Petitioner had alleged in her eviction petition that there were only three rooms in the ancestral house, yet according to the learned Judge, it was clear from the statement of Hari Om that there were seven rooms in that house. But I have already discussed the needs of the landlord, taking into consideration the accommodation presently occupied by the family, i.e. seven rooms, and held that that accodmmoation was insufficient for her needs.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No.2 was correct and should not have been interfered with by the learned appellate authority. In this view of the matter, it is needless to determine issue No. 5.

I would, therefore, accept this petition, reverse the order of the appellate authority and restore that of the Rent Controller. The tenant is, however, granted three months'' time to vacate the premises. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.