Smt. Surinder Kaur and Another vs Ujaggar Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenants'' petition against whom eviction order has been passed by the courts below.

The landlord Ujaggar Singh sought the ejectment of his tenants Surinder Kaur and her husband Harbhajan Singh from the house in dispute No. WH55 consisting of 2 rooms, thara, one small improvised kitchen, latrine and bath room with a compound built on 4-Marlas plot which is on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- with the tenants. It was stated in the ejectment application that the landlord was residing in Africa with his family and was not in need of the premises in dispute, so he rented out the same to the tenants in the year. 1966. Now he has permanently shifted to Jullundur City with his wife and wishes to live in his own house. At present he is living in a rented house and he has no other house in Jullundur City nor he has vacated, such house in Jullundur City after the passing of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act without any reasonable cause. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenants it was stated that the landlord was settled in Africa with his family, but thereafter he shifted and settled in United Kingdom It is totally wrong that the landlord requires the premises for his personal use and occupation. It was further pleaded that it is wrong that the landlord was living in a rented house or that he has not vacated any such premises without sufficient cause. According to the tenants the landlord is not an Indian citizen. He is actually British national and has come to India temporarily on a British passport. The sole object of the Plaintiff to file the present petition is to sell the property or to increase its rent. The application is malafide one and the same has not been filed in good faith. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord it was reiterated that the landlord has permanently shifted to India. At present he is living in a rented house which is not sufficient for his requirements and which is only taken on rent with a clear understanding that the same shall be vacated immediately on vacation of the house in dispute. On trial, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlords requirement is bonafide and the mere fact that he is a British citizen does not disentitle him to get the house vacated. It was also found that at present he was living in a rented house belonging to one Hari Singh who has appeared as AW2. He has stated that the landlord was in possession of 2 rooms out of his house along one kitchen and bathroom and he had given this portion temporarily and now he intends to get the same vacated In view of this finding, eviction order was passed In appeal, the learned appellate authority aafrirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. It has been observed by the appellate authority that "lastly, Mr. Gautam tried to contend that the landlord had no intention to settle in India permanently. In fact, he wants to sell these premises and fetch a higher price. Even this contention of Mr. Gautam cannot be accepted as he has himself admitted that in the last five years, the landlord had gone to U. K. 2 or 3 times. The amount of money, which the landlord might have spent in coming and going, would have been much more than the price which would have fetched after selling the tenanted premises by getting the same vacated. Consequently, I am of the opinion that even this contention appears to be without merit." Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants have filed this petition in this Court.

During the pendency of this, petition, the tenant moved C. M. No. 786-CII-1986 for bringing on record certain events which according to him were necessary for the disposal of this petition. Reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the landlord. Vide this Court order dated 7.5.1986 the landlord was also directed to file his affidavit within a week as to his position for visiting the Punjab being a British citizen. Consequenty, affidavit dated 7-5-1986 was filed in this Court by Ujagar Singh landlord wherein he stated that the Indian High Commission has granted permission for a maximum period of six months. However, an assurance was given to the deponent that his case will be re-examined after passing of six months. It has also been stated that the deponent has got no intention to leave India and wants to permanently settle in India during the last days of his life. Presently he is in India along with his wife. Along with the affidavit a copy of the application addressed to the High Commission of India, U.K. for extention of his stay was also filed.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners vehemently contended that the requirement of the landlord was not at all bonafide and the finding of the authorities below in this behalf was wrong and improper. According to the learned Counsel, the landlord is a British citizen. He retired in the year 1954 and did not come to India and rather settled in United Kingdom. His six sons are settled in England and the landlord had come to India on return ticket. He is getting pension there and there is no evidence showing any compelling circumstances as to why he wants to leave England and settle in India. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel, carlier his wife Pritam Kaur got another house which is adjacent to the house in dispute vacated from her tenants and instead of occupying the same, she sold away the house to the tenants themselves on a higher price and thus similary the landlord wants to sell away the present house also after obtaining the eviction order on a higher price. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel the landlord being a foreign citizen has been permitted to remain in the State of Punjab for six months only and after the expiry of said period, he will have to leave India and go back to England. Argument was also raised that the landlord filed an ejectment application earlier which was got dismissed as withdrawn, though the earlier order allowing the application to withdraw with the permission to file a fresh application was set aside by the High Court. It was also contended that the landlord was at present occupying the tenanted premises which has not been shown to be insufficient for his purposes and therefore, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ramesh Kumar v. Atma Devi (1985) 87 P. L. R. 751, the landlord was not entitled to evict his tenants. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found that his requirement is bonafide and it being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in this petition. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel the landlord is prepared to give an undertaking in this Court that in case he fails to occupy the premises for any reason during his life time, the tenants will be entitled to claim its ownership in that eventuality. According to the learned Counsel, the landlord is keen to settle in India in his last days.

5 I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record. The landlord has categorically stated in his application that at present he was occupying the premises taken on rent from one Hari Singh In the replication filed by him, it was made clear that the premises were taken on rent with the clear understanding that as soon as he get the eviction order passed against his tenants, the same will be vacated by him. Hari Singh himself has appeared in the witness box as AW 2 and he has stated that he asked the landlord Ujagar Singh to vacate his premises. Under these circumstances, the Full Bench authority in Ramesh Kumar''s case (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has no applicability to the facts of the present case.

The mere fact that the landlord is a British citizen does not debar him to claim eviction of his tenants on the ground that he bona-fidely required the premises for his own use and occupation. From the facts and circumstances of the present case I do not find that any malafide could be alleged against the landlord for ejecting his tenants. The appellate authority has rightly observed that the landlord must have spent much more in coming and going to England and India than the price of the house which it is likely to fetch according to the tenants. The house in dispute is constructed on a 4-marias plot. Consisting of 2 rooms and a bathroom and a kitchen. The landlord has categorically stated in this Court that he is going to stay in the said house along with his wife and will continue to remain therein till their life. There is nothig to disbelieve him particularly when it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that his requirement was bonafide. Even if the landlord goes back to England for some time, it docs not mean that he cannot get the house vacated on account of personal requirement. It is not necessary that the landlord must stay in his house for the whole year. The question to be determined is whether he bona-fidely requires the premises for his own occupation or not. Admittedly he has no other house of his own in the urban area concerned. As and when he comes to India he is to stay somewhere either with his friends or in a rented premises. That itself shows that the landlord bonafidely requires the premises for his own occupation and use as and when he comes to India.

The mere fact that earlier Pritam Kaur, the wife of the landlord got the house vacated from her tenants and consequently sold the same to them was of no consequence. Admittedly, the house was not got vacated on the ground of personal requirement. It was got vacated because the tenants had impaired the value and utility of the said house. If after getting the eviction order against them, it was sold to them there is nothing wrong therein, and therefore, no argument could be built on that ground

As regards the earlier petition having been dismissed as withdrawn was of no consequence because according to the orders of the High Court the Rent Controller could not grant permission to the landlord to file a fresh application on the same cause of action. But at the same time, the landlord could get his application dismissed as withdrawn at any time. As a matter of fact in the earlier application it was pleaded that it was Surinder Kaur who was the tenant and not her husband. In order to avoid that objection, the fresh application for ejectment was filed against both husband and wife. Thus it is the conduct of the tenants themselves which was responsible for getting the fresh application filed against them.

Thus taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below. The requirement of the landlord is most genuine to occupy his own house in his old age. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed 2 months time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and the rent will be paid by the 10th of every month in advance.