AMRIT LAL WALIA Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 15 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 is directed against the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated March 31, 1970 confirming on appeal the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) The ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord and it is only with this question that we are concerned in this petition. The admitted facts are that the family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife, three major and a minor son. The eldest son who is from his first wife (since dead) was married three/four years prior to the filing of the application for ejectment and is living separately in a rented house. One son was married in November 1980 and he also is living in a house purchased by the landlord from him. So at the time of the ejectment application, the family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife and two sons and he was living in a rented house consisting of two rooms, kitchen, veranda and a store. The accommodation in possession of the tenant consists of two rooms and a verandah as shown in Exhibit A-3. The Appellate Authority upheld the plea of the landlord on the ground that the house he was occupying was in his possession as a tenant and so he was not in its possession as of right. This view is no more tenable in view of a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, 1980 82 PunLR 613 wherein it has been held that possession of a tenant is possession as of right and as such the landlord would not be entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant unless he further proves that he has to vacate the tenanted premises because of a reasonable excuse or is under threat of ejectment from the tenanted premises in his possession.

(3.) None of the two authorities below has found the premises already in possession of the landlord to be insufficient for his need. But as there was such a plea taken in the petition, the learned counsel sought to support the order of ejectment on this ground. To controvert this plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during the pendency of these proceedings the landlord has purchased another house in the name of his son, Tajinderpal Singh, and taken its vacant possession and this accommodation coupled with the accommodation already in his possession would be more than sufficient for his needs. Though the purchase of the house was admitted but there was dispute between the parties as to the nature of the accommodation in possession of the landlord. So, I called for a report of the Rent Controller with the consent of the parties. After inspecting the spot, the Rent Controller with the consent of the parties. After inspecting the spot, the Rent Controller has reported that the landlord has purchased a house situate in Krishna Gali, Jullundur City, consisting of two portions. The first portion consists of two rooms which are both electrified and have cemented flooring. These rooms were being used for storing paints and account books. The second half is a vacant site. Looking to the condition of the earlier portion, he has found that this property was not fit to be occupied without repairs. The Rent Controller also inspected another property owned by the landlord situate at New Railway Road, Jullundur City, which consisted of four rooms but only one room was found to be in his possession and the rest were with one Keemti Lal. It has been reported by the Rent Controller thatthe landlord was in possession of all the four rooms till March 1981 and thereafter he had deliberately allowed Keemti Lal to occupy them. It is, therefore, evident from the report of the Rent Controller that the landlord was in possession of four rooms in the second property out of which three rooms he had allowed to be occupied by Keemti Lal without any sufficient cause. This accommodation coupled with the accommodation in possession of the landlord consisting of six rooms, verandah, store and kitchen would be more than sufficient for his needs. The landlord has also purchased another house, two rooms of which can be made habitable by ordinary repairs. He has thus apart from the tenanted house, two other houses in his possession and the accommodation in his possession is certainly much more than a family of favour persons would require. The landlord, therefore, had no bonafide need which could entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant and the finding of the authorities below to the contrary is hereby reversed.