BHAGWAN DASS Vs. PREM CHAND SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the tenant under sub-section (5) of section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises on the following facts.

(2.) The respondent - landlord filed an application under section 13, sub-section 3(a)(iv) seeking petitioner's ejectment on the ground that the demised premises - Chaubara (fully described in the head note of the application) vas needed by him for the purposes of his married son, Romesh Chander. Keeping in view the settled position of law in the light of Attar Singh V. Inder Kumar, 1967 AIR(SC) 773 and Banke Ram V. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977 1 RCJ 332, necessary ingredients a specified in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of the above noted clause (iv). In his reply dated January 13, 1976, the petitioner simply denied these allegations mentioned in paragraphs 3(a) to 3(c) of the application without raising any specific defence to the effect that the son of the petitioner was in occupation of any other premises and had vacated the same without any sufficient cause. As a result of the trial the respondent - landlord succeeded and the Rent Controller vide his order dated November 1, 1976, ordered the eviction of the petitioner. His appeal against that order too failed before the appellate authority (Additional District Judge) Patiala ; It may be mentioned here that during the course of examining his evidence the petitioner brought on record some material to show that Romesh Chander had remained in occupation of houses Nos. 1236 and 1293 in Rajpura town ship for some time and had vacated the same. On the basis of this material o the petitioner sought to raise a plea that since the landlord had failed a to prove that his son Romesh Chander had not been occupying yip premises under had not vacated the same without any sufficient cause his application under section 13 of the Act deserved to be dismissed. While dealing with this aspect of the matter the appellate authority relying on Hari Kishan Dogra V. Arlan Singh, 1973 RCJ 550 held that in spite of the evidence brought on record by the petitioner there was no material available on the basis of which it could be held that Romesh Chander was occupying those houses in his own right and, therefore, even if for argument's sake the plea of the petitioner that the son of the landlord was in occupation of those houses and had vacated the same is to be accepted, still the prayer of the landlord could not be declined.

(3.) Now before me it is vehemently urged by Mr. A.N. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment in Hari Kishan Dogra's case relied upon by the appellate authority has since been overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh V. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, 1980 2 RCJ 188and therefore the order under appeal deserves to be upset and the petition deserves to succeed. After examining the matter minutely. I am of the opinion that there is no substance in this submission of the learned counsel. In Hari Kishan Dogra's case it had been held by the learned Single Judge that a person in possession of a premises as a tenant is there only at the mercy of his landlord and such an occupation could not be treated to be occupation of the tenant in his own right. This view of the learned Single Judge was upset by the Division Bench in the latter case and this aspect of the matter is discussed in paragraph 8 of the judgment. It has not been held by the Division Bench any where that the occupation of the son of a landlord seeking eviction of his tenant on the plea of the requirement of the premises for his married son should not be in his own right, that is, the son nerd not be in possession of the premises in his own right. Thus there being no evidence on record in this case to show that Romesh Chander son of the respondent - landlord was in occupation of house Nos. 1236 and 1293 as a tenant or in his own right, it is impossible to hold that the vacation of those houses by Romesh Chander should be treated to be without any sufficient cause.