PARKASH CHAND Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parkash Chand filed an application for ejectment of his tenant Harbbajan Singh from residential House Nos. 67 and 68, Mohalla No. 22, Jullundur Cantt. on the ground of personal necessity, besides another ground which does not subsist for consideration. In para 3(ii) of the petition it was stated that the landlord requires the demised premises for his bonafide personal use and occupation as the accommodation with him was almost insufficient. In para 4, the other necessary ingredients were duly pleaded. A plan of the house in dispute was annexed with the petition which was later exhibited as A. I. The claim of the landlord was denied by the tenant and it was pleaded that the premises were not bonafide required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation as he had sufficient accommodation in his possession at Jullundur Cantt. It was further pleaded that the landlord had been pressing for enhancement of rent and when he did not agree, the petition for ejectment was filed.

(2.) After evidence was led, the Rent Controller did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed the same. The landlord went up in appeal which was also dismissed by order dated 2nd November, 1919. The landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) A reading of the judgments of the Courts below shows that either they did not keep in view the correct principles of law or misread the evidence on the record resulting into dismissal of the ejectment petition. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, 1980 2 RCJ 188what is of importance is possession of some premises by the landlord in his own right in the urban area concerned and not mere ownership. The found facts on the record are that the house in dispute is exclusively owned by Parkash Chand whereas there are three other sets of properties which belong to Joint Hindu Family consisting of himself and his three brothers. Out of the three properties, one property is owned by the petitioner, his three brothers and another branch jointly. It is also clear from the evidence on the record that the petitioner along with his three brothers and other co-sharers are living in house No. 82 in Mohalla No. 22, Jullundur Cantt, the plan of which has been produced on the record as Exhibit A-2. The tenant has not been able to bring on record any reliable evidence to show that any portion of the other two properties belonging to the Joint Hindu Family is in occupation of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is in possession of one room and a kitchen in house No. 82 in Mohalla No. 22 which has been shown in red colour in plan A-2. This statement of the petitioner has been corroborated by his brother who appeared as A.W. 3. The cross-examination of the petitioner and his brother as A.W. 3 clearly goes to show that no question was directed if the petitioner was in occupation of any other property or portion in addition to a room and a kitchen. The statements of the petitioner and his brother find enough corroboration from the statement of Karam Singh R.W. 3 produced by the tenant. Karam Singh was produced by the tenant to show that some portion of the the first floor of House No. 82 was in occupation of the petitioner because Karam Singh stated in examination-in-chief that the petitioner had 3.4 rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor where he had kept a T.V. set but in cross-examination he stated as follows :