ATMA RAM Vs. ACHRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the appellate authority dated June 7, 1975 whereby he accepted the appeal of the landlord and set aside the order of the Rent Controller rejecting the application for ejectment.

(2.) The premises in dispute consists of two Chubaras, a courtyard and Verandah which was leased out to Atma Ram, tenant-petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. An application for ejectment has been filed on various grounds but at present the only ground on which the Appellate Authority has ordered ejectment of the petitioner is the requirement of the landlord for his personal necessity and occupation. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord observing 'It has also come in evidence of Achhra Singh applicant that he constructed two rooms recently at Sirhind Mandi, and both the rooms were given on rent The accommodation in the house in dispute is certainly not more than those two rooms which he gave on rent and if he had real intention to shift over to Sirhind Mandi then he could easily occupy those two newly constructe rooms. After having considered the entire evidence, I am of the view that the applicant has no mind to shift to Sirhind Mandi and he simply wants to get rid of the tenant. The learned Appellate authority has not at all adverted to this finding of the Rent Controller. I has taken the view that the "the landlord is the best judge of his needs to employ a clerk for the management of the property or himself to manage the same. The two rooms admitted to have been constructed by the landlord Achhra Singh in his cross examination may not have been considered by the landlord to be suitable for his needs." Under these circumstances, there is no option but to uphold the bonafide requirements of the landlord to occupy this building at Sirhind for effective management of his property located there."

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that this view taken by the appellate authority is wrong and in support of his contention he has cited Shri Rattan Chand Jain v. Shri Charan Singh, 1978 1 RCR(Rent) 265 and Phiroxe Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M.P. and ors., 1974 AIR(SC) 1059. In view of these authorities, it is well settled that mere wish or desire of the landlord is itself not sufficient for getting the premises vacated. The need must be bonafide one and that is to be found by the Rent controller on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide as he has recently constructed two rooms and rented the same. In any case, no such evidence has been led that why the landlord could not occupy these two rooms which were constructed by him. From the evidence, it appears that the landlord owns many buildings in the Mandi Sirhind and has rented out to various tenants and recently he has constructed another building and again rented out the same. Under these circumstances, the plea of the landlord that he wants to shift from Patiala to Sirhind to settle and to look after and manage the property owned by him at Sirhind does not appear to be a bonafide. It is also in the evidence that the property at Sirhind is being looked after and managed by some person engaged by the landlord. There is no explanation why that arrangement could not be continued even now. In this view of the matter, the appellate authority has erred in reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller particularly without adverting to specific finding given by it.