HANS RAJ Vs. PAKHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against the order of ejectment from the house in dispute on the ground of personal necessity. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have recorded a concurrent finding that Baldev Singh, the owner of the house in dispute, wants to occupy it.

(2.) The petition for ejectment was filed by Pakhar Singh father of Baldev Singh, owner of the house, alleging that at that time Baldev Singh was residing in village Rurka Kalan; that he was running a truck for which he was not getting enough business while staying in the village; that he wanted to shift to Ludhiana to register his truck with some truck union for better profits and that his wife who is M.A., B.T. wants to join some service in Ludhiana to educate his minor children there. There pleas were accepted by the authorities below and it was held that the landlord had a genuine need to occupy the house in dispute. The concurrent finding of the authorities below has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that Baldev Singh has since taken up residence in Muscat; that the landlord has a already secured an ejectment order with regard to the other portion of the house in dispute which is sufficient for his needs and that he having let out another house situate at Ludhiana 6/7 years prior to the filing of the present application was not entitled to eject the petitioner without showing that the said house had been vacated for sufficient cause. None of the grounds urged by the landlord counsel, however, has any merit. The fact that Baldev Singh has temporarily gone to a foreign country does not mean that the need of his family to occupy the house at Ludhiana-has ceased to exist. As regard the ejectment order of the other portion of the house in dispute, it has been stated at the bar that the tenant of that portion has not till today vacated the same and has instead instituted a civil suit challenging the validity of the ejectment order which was based on a compromise, It is, therefore, evident that the earlier ejectment order is still under challenge in a civil suit. That apart, after looking at the map of the house in dispute I find that the whole house is one compact unit having common court yard and common entrance. In these circumstances, the landlord who has a young wife and two children cannot be forced to live with a stranger. Moreover, the four rooms which are in the occupation of the other tenant would not be sufficient for the needs of the landlord and his family, which consists of four members and his aged parents. The plea of the landlord, therefore, cannot be negatived on the second ground also.

(3.) As regards the third contention that landlord had let out another house 7/8 years prior to the filing of this present petition, it may be mentioned that no suggestion was put to him that he was ever in occupation of that house. On the contrary, the case of the landlord is that he is residing in the village and has never lived at Ludhiana prior to the filing of the application. Moreover, Baldev Singh, the owner of the house has specifically stated that the house was on rent from the very beginning which means that the house was already on rent when it was purchased or was leased out after its acquisition where the landlord had no intention to live at Ludhiana. As the landlord was never in its occupation, the question of pleading that he had not vacated the same without sufficient cause would not arise. The other three ingredients required under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act were duly pleaded and stand proved according to the concurrent findings of the authorities below. None of the grounds urged therefore, has any substance and this petition is accordingly dismissed. The tenant is, however allowed to vacate the premises in dispute within three months from today provided he files an affidavit within ten days giving an undertaking that he would deliver vacant possession of the house on the expiry of the said period of three months and also pays the arrears of rent if any, together with the rent for these three months within one month from today.