Smt. Tripta Soni and Anohter vs Shri S.P. Jain

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlady''s petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

The landlady Smt. Tripta Soni sought ejectment of her tenant S. P. Jain from House No. 1839 ground-floor. Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, inter alia on the ground that she bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation. According to the landlady, at present she was living in England along with family for the last 18 years. She has got three children and therefore now wants to settle in India permanently along with her husband and also wants to provide Indian Education to her children. Moreover, her husband''s brother who was in England has now settled permanently at Chandigarh. There are three tenants in the house in question and Shri S.D. Sharma is occupying one backroom Kitchen on the first floor and has agreed to vacate one back room and kitchen on the first floor. Thus she requires the entire building for her bona fide use and occupation and for her family members. In the written statement, the tenant denied these allegations and pleaded that the landlady was permanently settled at Birmingham and the present petition is mala fide being based on extraneous consideration to extract further enhancement of rent.

The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the landlady required the disputed premises for her use and occupation. According to the Rent Controller, the landlady, though at present residing at England along-with her three children and husband, now wants to give Indian education to her Children and wants to settle in her own house. The allegation of the tenant that she wanted to increase rent was negatived. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller with the observation that, "I seriously doubt if Respondent No. 1 actually wants to shift along with her family from England to Chandigarh and requires the premises in question for her own use and occupation. Her represented need for the same appears to be merely an excuse for getting vacated the premises in question from the Appellant." Thus eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this petition in this Court.

Earlier notice of motion was issued but in spite of service the tenant never appeared, and the petition was admitted. Then notice for farzi date was actually served on the tenant on 31-7-1986. Later on the notice for actual date i.e. 2-12-1986 was issued. In spite of that, no one has appeared on behalf of the tenant and thus under the circumstances he is proceeded ex parte.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and going through the record I find that the requirement of the landlady to occupy the premises in dispute for the education of her children after coming back from England to India was most bona fide. The approach of the learned Rent Controller in this behalf was perfectly valid and in accordance with law whereas the learned Appellate Authority has acted illegally, improperly and with misconceived notions. It is not for the authorities to advise the lardlord as to what he or she should do in a particular situation. There is nothing to doubt the bona fide of the landlady when she states that she wants to settle in India and occupy her own house for the education of her children. There is nothing on the record that the application was actuated by any ultimo motive for enhancement of rent as alleged by the tenant. It is the decision of the landlord on that point which should prima facie prevail and the Rent Controller should not ordinarily become the judge of his requirement unless material had been brought on the record by the tenant to show that the desire of the landlady to occupy the house for her own use was not genuine and the ejectment application had not been filed bona fide. As observed eariler, no such evidence was led by the tenant Consequently, this petition succeeds, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant is restored with no order as to costs. Since the tenant has not appeared either at the stage of motion hearing nor at the stage of final hearing, no further time could be granted to him to vacate the premises.