Full Judgment
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that the demised premises are required for bona fide use and occupation of the landlord and his family members.
2. The respondent-landlord purchased the demised premises vide sale deed dated 14.8.1984. The petitioner was tenant in the house in dispute. The landlord sought ejectment by filing a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') on 14.5.1985, inter alia, on the ground that he is residing in one room of the house in which father of the landlord and three married brothers, namely, Padam Dev, Subhash Chander and Vijay Kumar are also residing. In the said house, 18 members of the joint family are living including four family members of the landlord. It is further pleaded that all the four brothers have their separate mess, and only one room has been provided to the landlord which is being used for residence as well as for cooking the food.
3. The tenant contested the said ejectment petition, inter alia, on the ground that the landlord is occupying another residential house within the Municipal Limits of Gurdaspur and that the sale deed dated 14.8.1984 is a benami transaction. The rate of rent as alleged by the landlord was also disputed.
4. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition holding that the landlord has claimed Rs. 100/- per month as rent which is not the rent of the tenanted premises and, thus, the action of the landlord in seeking ejectment is not bona fide.
5. However, the learned Appellate Authority found that the landlord family consisted of his wife and two children whereas he is residing in one room of the house owned by his father which insufficient. It is also found that his father by virtue of a Will has bequeathed the said house in favour of Subhash Chander.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court has vehemently argued that since the landlord has been disbelieved on the question of rate of rent by the learned Rent Controller and, therefore, the learned Appellate Authority has gravely, erred in law and, in fact, committed irregularity while ordering ejectment of the tenant on bona fide requirement of the landlord. To support such plea, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported as Tek Chand v. Wadhawa Ram, (1981)83 P.L.R. 48, and Santosh Kumar v. Bhagwant Parshad (1994) 2 Rent Control Reporter 19.
7. However, the said contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in law. In Tek Chand's case (supra) it was totality of circumstances as dealt in the judgment which weighed with the Court while disbelieving the landlord on the question of bonafide personal requirement. Somewhat similar situation is in Santosh Kumar's case (supra).
8. On the basis of aforesaid judgments, the petitioner wants to apply the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' (false in one thing, false in everything). It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The said maxim has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be discarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances. An attempt has been made to separate the grain from the chaff and truth from falsehood.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Ram Udagar Singh v. State of Bihar, : (2004)10SCC443 , held as under:
'... In essence, prayer is to apply the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case the residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that the evidence has been found to be deficient to prove the guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be discarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence.'
10. The said principle of law has been applied in civil cases as well in a case arising out of the Representation of People Act, 1951, reported as Vatal Nagaraj v. Dayanand Sagar, : [1975]2SCR384 ; and in a dispute regarding declaration as Sikh Gurud-wara, reported as S.G.P. Committee v. M.P. Dass Chela (dead) by L.Rs., : [1998]3SCR119 .
11. Therefore, the mere fact that the witness has been disbelieved on the question of rate of rent would not be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the said witness in its entirety. The learned Appellate Court has discussed the evidence in detail to return a finding of fact on appreciation of entire evidence, that the landlord is able to prove his bona fide requirement. It could not be pointed out that any part of evidence has been either misread or any part has been excluded from consideration.
12. No other point has been raised.
13. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act.
14. Dismissed. However, the eviction order passed against the petitioner shall not be executed for a period of two months provided the petitioner furnishes an undertaking by way of affidavit before the learned Executing Court within two weeks to the effect that he shall hand over vacant physical possession of the demised premises on the expiry of period of two months and pay the entire arrears of rent and shall also pay future rent for the period he remains in occupation of the demised premises.