C L JOLLY Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The house in question known as 'Vishnu Villa' situate in Sanjauli belonged to Shri D. D. Bharadwaj. It was let out to C. L. Jolly petitioner (hereafter referred to as the tenant) on a rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. Shri D. D. Bharadwaj died leaving behind several heirs. According to the petitioner, he left six legal heirs who became the owners of the property in dispute. Three of such heirs are Madan Lal respondent, Sohan Lal and Krishan Kumar, son of the deceased. These brothers also have a step-mother and it was admitted by Krishan Kumar (P.W.2) that their step-mother is a "co-owner" of the property in dispute. There are two residential flats in the building. First floor had been let out to the petitioner while the second floor is in occupation of the landlord where according to the evidence Madan Lal's step-mother resides. After the death of Shri D. D. Bharadwaj, Madan Lal alone filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949, for eviction of C.L. Jolly tenant on two grounds:-(1) non-payment of rent and (2) that he required the building for his own occupation. He did not implead other heirs of the deceased even as respondents.

(2.) It is appropriate to point out that in September 1963 the property was attached and a notice issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer to the tenant directing him:

(3.) The first date of hearing in the application for ejectment was admittedly 11/8/1964, and on that day even according to the tenant about Rs. 20.00 were due to the landlord as arrears of rent. In these circumstances the trial Court by judgment dated 30/8/1965, decided that though no tender of rent was made on the date of first hearing the tenant could not have done so in view of the prohibitory order dated 17/9/1963, and therefore the tenant was not liable to ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. The trial Court also held that the evidence produced was insufficient to justify a finding that the landlord had a genuine desire to reside at Simla. On Issue No. 1, whether the petitioner alone has locus standi to make the application, the trial Court was of the opinion that one of the joint owners could do so. The trial Court consequently dismissed the application of the landlord who went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority inter alia decided that even though the tenant was under a restraint order and could not tender or deposit the rent on 11/8/1964, the first date of hearing, yet he could do so on 31/8/1964, when the attachment order had been withdrawn. The Appellate Authority further observed that the tenant could have deposited the rent in Court either under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act or section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. The Appellate Authority, however, did not touch on the question of the competence of Madan Lal alone one of the owners of the propery to institute the present proceedings. He, however, held in favour of the landlord that the premises were bona fide required by -him for his own use and occupation. In the result the Appellate Authority ordered the eviction of tenant.