Jagmohan Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Syal - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/623637
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-01-2000
Case NumberCivil Rev. No. 1672 of 2000
Judge R.L. Anand, J.
Reported in(2000)126PLR261
ActsEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13(3)
AppellantJagmohan Singh
RespondentSanjeev Kumar Syal
Appellant Advocate Puneet Jindal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Syal, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - 1. this is landlord's revision, who remained unsuccessful both before the rent controller and the appellate authority, and has given challenge to the order of the appellate authority who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner under section 15 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act. therefore, he has failed to prove for succeeding in the application on the ground of personal necessity. 9. before i deal with the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, i would like to deal with the scope of the revision when the ejection petition has been dismissed on the ground of personal necessity by both the courts below. in these circumstances, i have to see whether there is any 'illegality in appreciation of evidence by the rent controller as well as the appellate authority.r.l. anand, j.1. this is landlord's revision, who remained unsuccessful both before the rent controller and the appellate authority, and has given challenge to the order of the appellate authority who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner under section 15 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act.2. the brief facts of the case are that the case set up by the petitioner is that he is landlord/owner of the premises in dispute and the respondent is a tenant at the rate of rs. 525/- per month. the ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. elaborating his personal necessity, the petitioner alleged in his petition under section 13 of the act that there are four members in his family. his father is also residing with him. he has two grown up school going children. he himself is permanently handicapped. one of his legs is affected by polio and he is moving with the help of crutches. he has been declared permanently disabled by the doctor. at present, he is residing in a rented accommodation and is paying rent at the rate of rs. 1, 200/- per month and it is not possible for him to live in that rented house and he is in dire necessity of his own house. he does not own any other house or land in india except the house in dispute. he is not occupying any other building in the urban area concerned nor he has vacated any such building without any sufficient cause and ground, since the commencement of the act.3. the petition was contested by the tenant and he stated that the petitioner does not require the house in dispute for his personal use and occupation. he had been residing in house no. 70-a, model house, jalandhar, alongwith his parents and sister since long. shortly before filing the application, he shifted to house no. 16, dashmesh nagar, jalandhar. in order to practice deception upon the court, he vacated h.no. 76-a without any reasonable cause. that house consists of 8 rooms, two toilets, three kitchens and one store and is sufficient for the landlord and his family. the landlord has suppressed the facts from the court and has come to the court with soiled hands. in these circumstances, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the rent petition.4. a rejoinder was also filed to the written statement by the petitioner in which he controverted the allegations of the written statement by re-iterating those made in the rent petition and on the above pleadings of the parties, the learned rent controller framed the following issues for the disposal of the rent petition:-'1. whether the tender made on the first date of hearing is short and invalid? opa2. whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide personal necessity? opa3. whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties opa4. relief5. the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and the learned rent controller dismissed the petition under section 13 of the act.6. aggrieved by the order of the rent controller, the landlord filed a statutory appeal under section 15 of the act, which was also dismissed on 25.10.1999, for the predominant following reasons given in paras 15 and 16 of the order:-'15. in order to succeed on this ground, the applicant was required to plead and prove the following three ingredients:-1. he requires the demised house for his own occupation;2. he has not occupied any other residential building in the urban building in the urban areas concerned ;3. he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the act in the said urban area.the occupation of the other building by the landlord means in his own right, whether he can be ejected from the other building by some one else, it cannot be held that he has occupied that building in his own right.16. while deciding this issue against the applicant, it was observed by the learned rent controller that the applicant while appearing as his own witness as aw-i did not state a single word about the fact that he does not own any other house at jalandhar and that he did not vacate such house since the commencement of the act. these are wrong observations made by the learned rent controller as the applicant aw-i specifically stated that he has no other house or plot in the territory of india. in addition to that he was also required to prove he has not vacated any such house without sufficient cause after the commencement of the act. there was reason for him for not making a statement in the court to that effect as it is very much apparent from his statement that previously he was occupying some other house. from the evidence produced on the record it can easily be concluded that previously he was residing with his father in house no. 76-a, model house, jalandhar. respondent rw-i has made a categorical statement to that effect and he has been fully supported by vijay kumar rw-3. that house consists of 8 rooms, two toilets and three kitchens. according to the applicant aw-i only his mother is residing in that house. he was residing in that house and he vacated the same without any sufficient cause before shifting to the above said tenanted house. therefore, he has failed to prove for succeeding in the application on the ground of personal necessity. under these circumstances the findings on this issue cannot be reversed and the same is hereby affirmed.7. in this manner, aggrieved by the orders of the courts below, the present revision.8. i have heard mr. puneet jindal, advocate, en behalf of the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of his case.9. before i deal with the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, i would like to deal with the scope of the revision when the ejection petition has been dismissed on the ground of personal necessity by both the courts below.10. concurrent findings of fact are against the landlord that his need is not bona fide. in these circumstances, i have to see whether there is any 'illegality in appreciation of evidence by the rent controller as well as the appellate authority.11. learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently assailed the findings of the court below and stated that the petitioner can occupy the demised premises in his own right. he is residing in a rented accommodation, he has not vacated any residential premises in the area jalandhar without any sufficient cause and the petitioner does not own any residential premises any where in india. he further submitted that the appellate court has given a finding in favour of the petitioner with regard to the sale deed that it was a genuine sale.12. after applying my mind to the submissions of the counsel for petitioner, this court is of the considered opinion that the need of the petitioner is not bona fide one because he had not vacated the premises without sufficient cause before filing of the present petition. it is the proved case on the record that earlier the petitioner was residing in h.no. 76-a with his parents in model house, jalandhar. that house consisted of eight rooms, two toilets and three kitchens. according to the petitioner his mother was residing in that house. the petitioner has vacated that premises and has taken the premises on rent in order to create a ground for ejectment. in these circumstances, the need of the petitioner cannot be held to be bona fide. mere wish of a landlord is not equivalent to a bona fide need.
Judgment:

R.L. Anand, J.

1. This is landlord's revision, who remained unsuccessful both before the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, and has given challenge to the order of the appellate authority who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner under section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the case set up by the petitioner is that he is landlord/owner of the premises in dispute and the respondent is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 525/- per month. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. Elaborating his personal necessity, the petitioner alleged in his petition under section 13 of the Act that there are four members in his family. His father is also residing with him. He has two grown up school going children. He himself is permanently handicapped. One of his legs is affected by polio and he is moving with the help of crutches. He has been declared permanently disabled by the doctor. At present, he is residing in a rented accommodation and is paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1, 200/- per month and it is not possible for him to live in that rented house and he is in dire necessity of his own house. He does not own any other house or land in India except the house in dispute. He is not occupying any other building in the urban area concerned nor he has vacated any such building without any sufficient cause and ground, since the commencement of the Act.

3. The petition was contested by the tenant and he stated that the petitioner does not require the house in dispute for his personal use and occupation. He had been residing in house No. 70-A, Model House, Jalandhar, alongwith his parents and sister since long. Shortly before filing the application, he shifted to house No. 16, Dashmesh Nagar, Jalandhar. In order to practice deception upon the Court, he vacated H.No. 76-A without any reasonable cause. That house consists of 8 rooms, two toilets, three kitchens and one store and is sufficient for the landlord and his family. The landlord has suppressed the facts from the court and has come to the Court with soiled hands. In these circumstances, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the rent petition.

4. A rejoinder was also filed to the written statement by the petitioner in which he controverted the allegations of the written statement by re-iterating those made in the rent petition and on the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues for the disposal of the rent petition:-

'1. Whether the tender made on the first date of hearing is short and invalid? OPA

2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide personal necessity? OPA

3. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties OPA

4. Relief

5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition under section 13 of the Act.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord filed a statutory appeal under section 15 of the Act, which was also dismissed on 25.10.1999, for the predominant following reasons given in paras 15 and 16 of the order:-

'15. In order to succeed on this ground, the applicant was required to plead and prove the following three ingredients:-

1. He requires the demised house for his own occupation;

2. He has not occupied any other residential building in the urban building in the urban areas concerned ;

3. He has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area.

The occupation of the other building by the landlord means in his own right, whether he can be ejected from the other building by some one else, it cannot be held that he has occupied that building in his own right.

16. While deciding this issue against the applicant, it was observed by the learned Rent Controller that the applicant while appearing as his own witness as AW-I did not state a single word about the fact that he does not own any other house at Jalandhar and that he did not vacate such house since the commencement of the Act. These are wrong observations made by the learned Rent Controller as the applicant AW-I specifically stated that he has no other house or plot in the territory of India. In addition to that he was also required to prove he has not vacated any such house without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. There was reason for him for not making a statement in the Court to that effect as it is very much apparent from his statement that previously he was occupying some other house. From the evidence produced on the record it can easily be concluded that previously he was residing with his father in house No. 76-A, Model House, Jalandhar. Respondent RW-I has made a categorical statement to that effect and he has been fully supported by Vijay Kumar RW-3. That house consists of 8 rooms, two toilets and three kitchens. According to the applicant AW-I only his mother is residing in that house. He was residing in that house and he vacated the same without any sufficient cause before shifting to the above said tenanted house. Therefore, he has failed to prove for succeeding in the application on the ground of personal necessity. Under these circumstances the findings on this issue cannot be reversed and the same is hereby affirmed.

7. In this manner, aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the present revision.

8. I have heard Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, en behalf of the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of his case.

9. Before I deal with the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, I would like to deal with the scope of the revision when the ejection petition has been dismissed on the ground of personal necessity by both the Courts below.

10. Concurrent findings of fact are against the landlord that his need is not bona fide. In these circumstances, I have to see whether there is any 'illegality in appreciation of evidence by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently assailed the findings of the Court below and stated that the petitioner can occupy the demised premises in his own right. He is residing in a rented accommodation, he has not vacated any residential premises in the area Jalandhar without any sufficient cause and the petitioner does not own any residential premises any where in India. He further submitted that the appellate Court has given a finding in favour of the petitioner with regard to the sale deed that it was a genuine sale.

12. After applying my mind to the submissions of the counsel for petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the need of the petitioner is not bona fide one because he had not vacated the premises without sufficient cause before filing of the present petition. It is the proved case on the record that earlier the petitioner was residing in H.No. 76-A with his parents in Model House, Jalandhar. That house consisted of eight rooms, two toilets and three kitchens. According to the petitioner his mother was residing in that house. The petitioner has vacated that premises and has taken the premises on rent in order to create a ground for ejectment. In these circumstances, the need of the petitioner cannot be held to be bona fide. Mere wish of a landlord is not equivalent to a bona fide need.