JAI KUMAR Vs. PADAM CHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 by the tenant is directed against the Judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated October, 24, 1978, confirming the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) The respondents who jointly own the house in dispute situate at Hansi, district Hissar, filed this petition for the ejectment of Jai Kumar petitioner on a number of grounds but the only one which survives for consideration is of personal necessity. The case as set up by the landlords is that Padam Chand who till 1968 was a Revenue Officer in Delhi had since retired and wants to shift to Hansi and needs the house in dispute for his own occupation. In his statement, on oath, he stated that he wanted, to shift to Hansi as the climate of Delhi was not conducive to his health that he was suffering from gastric trouble and that the living in Delhi was also comparatively expensive. The Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority accepted his claim and ordered ejectment of the petitioner. The concurrent finding recorded by the two courts below is sought to be challenged on two grounds, namely, that the very approach of the Appellate Authority to the question is dispute was erroneous in such as reliance was placed on merits in decision of this Court holding that the landlord was the best judge of his needs which view has since been dissented from by the latter decisions and that all the attending circumstances were not taken into consideration while the bonafide of the landlord.

(3.) Before appreciating the evidence of the Landlord, the Appellate Authority relied on a number of decisions of this Court and observed that the owner is the true judge of his needs and that it is his decision which is the determining factor and the Rent Controller cannot become the judge of his needs. It was after settling this principle that he proceded to appreciate the evidence produced by the parties. No doubt, till recently the view of this Court was that the landlord was the best judge of his needs and his statement has to be accepted in this respect unless the tenant was able to show that the action was motivated by some ulterior purposes and the claim was not bonafide. However, in Rattan Chand Jain v. Charan Singh, 1978 1 RCR(Rent) 265, I struck a discordant note relying on a Supreme Court decision in Phiroze Bamanji Desi v. Chandrekant M. Patal and others, 1974 AIR(SC) 1059, and held that no ejectment could be ordered on the mere wish or desire of the landlord and to succeed the landlords has further to show that he is in genuine need to occupy the premises in dispute. In R.K. Jain v. Khazan Singh, 1980 82 PunLR 142, M. M. Punchi, J. agreed with this view and further elaborated and fortified it in the following terms :-