Sheela Devi and anr. Vs. Hazura Singh - Court Judgment

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The petitioners, who are tenants, have filed the instant petition against the order of ejectment passed by both the Courts below on the ground of personal bona fide necessity.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the premises in question, which is ground floor of House No. 3223, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, consisting of two rooms, kitchen and bath room, was let out to the husband and father of petitioners No. 1 and 2, respectively, at the rate of Rs. 225/- per month. The respondent-landlord is admittedly residing in the Flat portion of SCF No. 10, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, where he is running his business of Dry Cleaners. He is tenant in the aforesaid entire SCF. In the ground floor of the said SCF, he is doing his business and in the upper portion, which consists of a big hall, two rooms, store, bath room and kitchen on the first floor and two Barsati rooms on the top floor, he is residing. On 15.2.1988, he filed the ejectment application against the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity, impairment in the value and utility of the premises and for non-payment of rent. The demanded rent was paid on the first date of hearing and the ground of impairment in value and utility of the premises was not pressed. Therefore, issue of personal necessity was survived and the ejectment of the petitioners was ordered on that ground. In the ejectment application, the respondent-landlord claimed that the accommodation in his possession as tenant in SCF No. 10, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh was not sufficient as his family consists of his wife, one son and two daughters. His children were of grown up and marriageable age. Therefore, he claimed that the demised premises was required for his personal use and occupation.

3. The petitioners contested the aforesaid application on various grounds i.e. that requirement of the respondent-landlord is not bona fide; he does not require the demised premises for his personal use and necessity; and that he is in occupation of sufficient accommodation in SCF No. 10, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.

4. Both the Courts below have ordered the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity.

5. During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the respondent-land lord has placed on record the additional affidavit containing the subsequent events having material bearing on the controversy involved in this case vide CM No. 22591-CII of 2002. In that affidavit, it has been alleged that the son of respondent-landlord has returned from abroad in the year 1997 and got married on 5.4.1998 and has been blessed with a son on 27.5.1999. It has further been averred that one of the daughter, who was married, has become widow and another daughter is unmarried and is living with her parents, who are 84 and 72 years of age. In reply to the said affidavit, the petitioners have also brought on record certain events by way of affidavit. According to them, the landlord got ejected one Buta Ram from two rooms and store on the first floor of House No. 3223, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh in August, 1996 and took possession thereof. He also got ejected another tenant Ashok Kumar from the other two rooms on 14.9.1996. Two rooms on the top floor (Barsati portion) are also in occupation of the landlord. Thus, the total six rooms are in his possession since 1996 but he has not occupied the same, which shows the intention of the respondent-landlord that he is not willing to occupy the said portion.

6. On the basis, of the aforesaid factual position, which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ejectment application filed by the respondent is not bona fide. From the year 1996, respondent-landlord has not occupied six rooms in House No. 3223, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, which clearly establishes that he is only interested in getting the petitioner ejected from the demised premises inspite of the fact that he does not require the same for his use and occupation. Already there is sufficient accommodation available to the respondent-landlord in SCF No. 10, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. Due to this factual position and due to conduct of the respondent of not occupying the first and Barsati portion of the House No. 3223, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, he is not entitled to evict the petitioners from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide necessity. In support of his contention, he relied upon Amarjit Singh v. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain, A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 741 and Surjit Kaur v. Narinder Singh, 1985 H.R.R. 291.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondent-landlord is already in occupation of the SCF No. 10, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh as tenant. On the ground floor, he is doing his business and on the first floor and top floor, which is residential portion, he is residing. The residential accommodation in the aforesaid SCF which consists of a big hall, two rooms, store, bathroom and kitchen pn first floor and two rooms on the top floor, is sufficient for the respondent. Even if the same is insufficient, then during the pendency of the ejectment application, he has got vacated six rooms in House No. 3223., Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, which he has failed to occupy till now. Learned counsel further argued that the learned courts below did not properly appreciate the fact that the accommodation available in SCF No. 10, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh is sufficient for the residence of the respondent which was on rent with him. While relying upon the decision of this Court in Komesh Kumar v. Atma Devi and Ors.,3 1985 H.R.R. 649, he submitted that merely because the landlord is a tenant in SCF No. 10, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, he cannot claim his house on the ground of personal necessity without proving that the rented accommodation in his occupation is not sufficient for him. In the instant case, the learned trial court has wrongly proceeded on the assumption that since the landlord is residing in the rented accommodation, he has right to get his personal house vacated on the ground of personal necessity.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that in spite of the ejectment of two tenants from House No. 3223, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, he could not occupy the ejected portion because the same is insufficient for him. He submitted that the respondent-landlord requires the entire house for his accommodation and for this reason, he could not occupy the six rooms vacated by his tenants. Learned counsel for the respondent, while relying upon 2001(1) R.C.R..221 (S:C.),4 and Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co.,5 2000(1) R.C.R. 135, submitted that it is for the landlord to see how much accommodation he is required to live comfortably. He submitted that due to subsequent events including the marriage of son of the respondent-landlord, he requires more accommodation and the rented accommodation in his possession in SCF No. 10, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh is not sufficient, therefore, he bonafidely requires the ground floor of House No. 3223, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh for his personal necessity.

9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties.

10. From the evidence available on the record as well as from the subsequent events brought on record by way of affidavits by both the parties, I am of the opinion that the need of the respondent for using the demised premises for his personal necessity is not bona fide. The premises in his possession is sufficient for his use and occupation. The demised premises in occupation of the petitioners is only ground floor which consists of two rooms, store, kitchen and bathroom, On the other hand, the respondent-landlord is in occupation of the entire SCF No. 10, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, which consists of one big hall, two rooms and bath room on first floor and two rooms on top floor. In addition to that, he has got vacated six rooms in House No. 3223, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh from his tenants after filing the ejectment application against them. The respondent-landlord has admittedly not occupied these six rooms on the ground that this accommodation is not sufficient for his personal use. He wanted the entire three storey house for his comfortable living. In my opinion the requirement and the conduct of the respondent-landlord is not bona fide. If he was really interested to reside in House No. 3223, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, he could have occupied the six rooms which were got vacated by him from his tenants, At least that accommodation is more than the accommodation in SCF No. 10. Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. The family of respondent-landlord consists of five members and they can easily be accommodated in six rooms lying vacant but the respondent-landlord has not shown any inclination to occupy these rooms. This conduct of the respondent-landlord disentitled him from getting the petitioners ejected. There is no dispute that this Court can take into consideration the subsequent events and developments occurred after the initiation of the ejectment proceedings and can reappraise the evidence while hearing the revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. By taking those events and developments into consideration, I am of the opinion that ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity of the respondent-landlord is not justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarjit Singh v. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain's case (supra) has observed as under:-

'The Rent Restricting Acts are beneficial legislations for the protection of the weaker party in the bargains of letting Very often. These must be so read that these balance harmoniously the rights of the landlords and the obligations of the tenants.

The Rent Restriction Acts deal with the problems of rack-renting and shortage of accommodation. It is in consonance with the recognition of the right of both the landlord and the tenant that a harmony is sought to be struck whereby the boha fide requirements of the landlords and the tenants in the expanding explosion of need and population and shortage of accommodation are sought to be harmonised and the conditions imposed to evict a tenant are that the landlord must have bona fide need.'

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, I am of the opinion that the requirement of the respondent-landlord of the premises in question for his personal necessity is not bona fide.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 28.2.1992 and 14.8.1996, passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh and learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, respectively, and the ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord is dismissed.

13. No order as to costs.