Dr. M.C. Verma and ors. Vs. Shri S.K. Dhawar and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ashok bhan, j.1. this revision-petition has been filed by the landlord (here-in-after referred to as the landlord) against the tenant-respondent (here-in-after referred to as the tenant). landlord sought the eviction of the tenant under section 13 of the east punjab urban (rent restriction) act, 1945 (here-in-after referred to as the act), from the demised premises consisting of the ground-floor of one kanal house no. 637 sector 11-b, chandigarh, on the grounds of personal use and occupation and that of his married son rakesh verma. the landlord himself resides in house no. 638 sector 11-b, chandigarh alongwith his wife, his unmarried sister, his son rakesh verma along with his wife and two sons. another son ratish verma who was unmarried at the time of the filing of the petition was living with the landlord. a separate application was filed in the court bringing on record additional fact that after the filing of the ejectment petition, ratish verma was married on 28.4.1986. it has further been alleged that a daughter has born to him. the accommodation in occupation of the landlord admittedly in house no. 638 sector 11-b, chandigarh comprises of six bed rooms (three on the ground floor and three on the first floor) along with drawing room, dinning hall and kitchen on each floor. the petition for ejectment was filed with the plea that the accommodation in the double storeyed one kanal house no. 638 was not sufficient to meet their requirements, on the ground that there are three separate family units living in house no. 638 which was not sufficient for three units.2. it has further been averred that tenant owns one kanal house in panchkula which he refuses to occupy for his own use.3. the tenant in the written statement filed, controverted the claim made in the petition. it has been stated in the written statement that married son rakesh verma and unmarried sister of the landlord are residing in the adjoining house no. 638 that ratish verma, second son of the landlord is residing at panchkula and is running his business there, that initially the rent of the tenanted premises was fixed at rs. 600/- which was to be increased to rs. 1100/- per month; that the landlord was pressing the tenant for further increase of the rent to which the tenant did not agree and for that reason, the petition for ejectment was filed. replication to the written statement was filed controverting all the pleas, taken in the written statement.4. on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: -1) whether the petitioners require the premises in dispute for his bona fide personal necessity? opa.2) relief.5. the rent controller decided issue no. 1 against the landlord and held that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was sufficient and, therefore, the premises in dispute was not required by the petitioners for their personal bona fide requirements. on the basis of this finding recorded, the rent controller dismissed the ejectment petition. the landlord carried an appeal to the first appellate court, which was also dismissed. being aggrieved, landlord has come to this court in the present revision petition.6. the evidence in this petition, consists of a.w. 1 m.l. verma, a.w. 3, shakuntla verma, ister of the landlord and a.w. 4 rakesh verma son of the landlord. as against this, the tenant produced one witness mr. ranjan lakhanpal, r.w. 1, resides appearing himself as r.w. 2. the courts below on consideration of the evidence came to concurrent finding that the premises in dispute is not required by the landlord either for his personal use or for the personal necessity of his sons. it was held that shakuntla verma, sister of the landlord was not economically dependent upon him and, therefore, her need could not be taken into consideration. further finding recorded was that ratish verma was not married at the time of filing of the petition; that ratish verma did not appear in the witness box. there being no corroboration to the claim from any other source, the plea taken by the tenant that ratish verma was not residing with his father was accepted. further finding recorded was that the accommodation with the landlord on both the floors of house no. 638 comprised of six bed rooms which was sufficient for the needs of the family of the landlord.7. the findings recorded by the courts below have been assailed by the counsel appearing for the landlord.8. after hearing learned counsel for the parties, i find no infirmity with the ultimate findings recorded by the courts below to the effect that the premises in dispute are not required by the landlord either for his personal necessity or for the personal use and occupation of his sons. further that accommodation in possession of landlord was sufficient.9. no doubt, ratish verma has been married after the filing of the petition and he has been blessed with a daughter as well but the conclusive evidence as to whether he is living with his father or not is still missing. it was averred by the tenant in his written statement which he later supplemented in his evidence that ratish verma was not residing with his father and that in fact he was living at panchkula where he was running his independent industrial unit. ratish verma did not step into the witness box himself to controvert the plea taken by the tenant. the courts below rightly drew an adverse inference against the landlord on the non-appearance of ratish verma in the witness box. the landlord is in occupation of six bed rooms along with two drawing rooms, two dining rooms and two kitchens in house no. 638 sector 11-b chandigarh, which in the circumstances is sufficient for him. the landlord had retired from service in the year 1976 meaning thereby that he would be more than 75 years of age at present. if one of his sons is living with him along with his two children even then the accommodation in their occupation is sufficient to meet their requirements.10. the learned counsel for the landlord argued that the courts below have erred in not taking into consideration the needs of shaftuntla, while determining the sufficiency of accommodation in possession of the landlord. for this he relied upon jagdish kumar narula v. shri niranjan lal and anr., 1980(1) r.l.r. 341, a division bench judgment of this court. it has been held in this judgment that even if the sister is not economically dependent on the brother, keeping in view of our social system, she is entitled to live with her brother and her needs have to be taken into consideration while determining the sufficiency of accommodation of the landlord. let this be so in this case. even then the accommodation in possession of the landlord is sufficient keeping into account the size of his family and the accommodation which is in his possession.the next argument of the learned counsel for the landlord is that the tenant already owns a house in panchkula and he can stay in his own house thereby vacating the tenanted premises in his possession. that comparative need has to be examined while determining the question of personal necessity. for this, he placed reliance upon three judgments i.e. new bank of india branch office mukatsar v. bhupinder singh dogra ,1991 h.r.r. 155, smt. sushila devi and ors. v. avinash chandra jain, 1988 h.r.r. 56 and chanan lal and ors. v. azizunisha, (1990) 2 s.c.c. 635. there is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in these authorities that comparative needs have to be examined but since in this case i have come to the conclusion that the accommodation in possession of the landlord is sufficient for his personal needs and those of other incumbents of his family, the question of comparative merits for determining the needs of the landlord is not required to be gone into. basically, it is the landlord who has come to !.he court with the plea that the accommodation in his possession is net sufficient for his needs and, therefore, the demised premises be got vacated for the personal use of the landlord and that of his married son. once a finding is recorded that the premises in occupation of the landlord is sufficient for his needs, keeping in view the size of the family viz-a-viz the size of accommodation then the question as to whether the tenant owns a house or not become irrelevant. the tenant cannot be asked to vacate the house simply because he owns a house at panchkula in the circumstances of this case.11. for the reasons recorded above, i find no merit in this petition, which is ordered to be dismissed as such with no order as to costs.