SHEO LAL Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord has something like thirty members of his family and he buys about ten seers of milk daily for the family. He lives in one house and the tenant is in his another house, in occupancy of three rooms described as rooms 1, 7 and 8 in that house. The landlord has admitted that there are two ways from the house where he resides to the house in, which the tenant has the rooms, the distance by one way being three furlongs and by the other one furlong. It does not appear from the evidence that the landlord has any of his other houses nearer to the house in which he resides than the house in which the tenant occupies the three rooms. The tenant has been in his tenancy for about twelve years.

(2.) THE landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of rooms 1 and 8 with the tenant for his own occupation under Section 23(3)(a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949), that he needed two out of the three rooms with the tenant for keeping a buffalo so as to make milk available to the members of his family. He said he needed one room for the buffalo and the next room for storing fodder for the animal. The Rent Controller was of the opinion that the use of the rooms for the purpose of keeping a buffalo is a mode of use of the same by the landlord, who is the best person to determine really what his need is. So he ordered the eviction of the tenant from the two rooms in question giving the tenant three months' time within which to vacate the same from the date of his order which was March 17, 1967. On appeal the learned Appellate Authority, following Institute of Radio Technology v. Pandurang Baburao, A.I.R. 1946 Bom. 212. was of the opinion that the words 'his own occupation mean occupation of himself and all persons, who are dependent on the landlord and that the same did not include occupation for keeping cattle by the landlord. In the case relied upon by the learned Judge no such question really arose. It was not a case in which eviction had been sought on the ground of requirement by the landlord of the demised premises for his own occupation because he needed the same for keeping his cattle. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal of the tenant and on January 1, 1968, dismissed the eviction application by the landlord. This is a revision application by the landlord from the appellate order of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) SO the approach of the Rent Controller was correct and accepting this revision application, and reversing the appellate order of the Appellate Authority, the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller against the tenant is restored. The tenant is given two months from today within which to vacate rooms 1 and 8. There is no order in regard to costs.