Surjit Kaur vs Sh. Pritam Singh

J.M. Tandon, J.—Pritam Singh and his father Sunder Singh purchased house No. 7, Brahm Nagar, Amritsar, from the vendor in equal shares by two separate sale-deeds both executed on December 3, 1972, and registered on December 4, 1972, Sant Singh, now deceased and represented by his widow Surjit Kaur Petitioner, occupied a portion of the house as a tenant since before its purchase by Pritam Singh. In July, 1974, Pritam Singh filed a petition for ejectment against Sant Singh on grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, sub-letting and bonafide requirement alleging that the half portion of the house in which fell the portion in occupation of Sant Singh had been purchased by him. The arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing and the Rent Controller vide order dated December 5, 1978, held that the alleged subletting on the part of Sant Singh was not proved and the landlord required the premises for his own use. The tenant was directed to vacate the premises. Sant Singh having died, his widow Surjit Kaur Petitioner filed on appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated September 4, 1981. The Petitioner has assailed the order; of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in the present revision.

House No. 7, Brahm Nagar, Amritsar, purchased by Pritam Singh Respondent and his father in equal shares by two separate sale-deeds of the sarae date constitute one unit. The half share of the house on the eastern side is that of Pritam Singh Respondent and the other half on the west is, that of his father. The Petitioner is in occupation of two rooms, one store, one bath and one kitchen. Pritam Singh is in occupation of three rooms and one kitchen. The portion of the house purchased by the father of Pritam Singh on western side consists of five rooms, one kitchen, one stere and a garage.

The family of Pritam Singh Respondent consists of his wife, three sons and a daughter. The accommodation in the portion of Pritam Singh i.e. three rooms and one kitchen is, of course, not sufficient for his requirement. Pritam Singh has rightly admitted in his statement that in case the portion of the house purchased by his father was available to him then the accommodation will be sufficient for his requirement.

Sunder Singh, father of Pritam Singh, died in 1976. Be executed a registered will dated August 29, 1974, under which his portion of house No. 7, Brahm Nagar, Amritsar, has been bequeathed by him in favour of his daughter-in-law Balwant Kaur, wife of Pritam Singh Respondent. Pritam Singh did not leak out, while leading his evidence, that the half portion of the house purchased by his father has been bequeathed by him in favour of his (Pritam Singh) wife. The petition it summoned R.W. Surjan Singh, Reader of Sub Registrar, Amritsar, who stated from record that Sunder Singh has executed a registered will in 1974. Sunder Singh has four sons and one daughter It is obvious that Sunder Singh disinherited all his sons and daughter while bequeathing his half portion of house No. 7, Brahm Nagar, Amritsar, in favour of the wife of Pritam Singh Respondent. The fact that Pritam Singh and his father both purchased half share each in the house by two separate sale-deeds on the same date and further Sunder Singh bequeathed his half share purchased by him in favour of the wife of Pritam Singh in 1974 are suggestive that Sunder Singh was only a Benamidar and the real owner of the portion purchased by him was Pritam Singh. According to Pritam Singh half portion of the house purchased by his father is lying vacant since after his death.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that half portion of the house purchased by Sunder Singh is now available for use by the family of Pritam Singh since 1976. The accommodation available with Pritam Singh and his family is, therefore, sufficient for his requirement. The Petitioner is not liable to be evicted form the portion of the house in dispute on the ground of personal requirement of Pritam Singh Respondent. The Learned Counsel for Pritam Singh Respondent has argued that assuming that half share of the en-tire house is owned by the wife of the Respondent since after the death of Sunder Singh in 1976, the Respondent is still entitled to get the portion of the house in dispute vacated on the, ground of his personal requirement because it is owned by him.

In my opinion, the contention, of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner must prevail. As stated earlier, the entire house constitute one link. Sunder Singh father of Pritam Singh Respondent, purchased half share of the house as Benamidar and the real owner, thereof is Pritam Singh Respondent. In any case, the half share, of Sunder Singh is now owned by the wife of the Respondent since after the death of Sunder Singh in 1976. It would be wrong to say that under these circumstances half portion of the house originally purchased by Sunder Singh and now owned by the wife of the Respondent since 1976 is not available for use and occupation by the Respondent and his family. The accommodation available with the Respondent and his family being sufficient for, their requirement, the Petitioner is not liable to be evicted on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord-Respondent.

In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority set aside and the application of the Respondent for the ejectment of the Petitioner dismissed With no order as to costs.