K K WHIG Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant from the first floor of house No. 3282 of Sector 21-D. , Chandigarh, consisting of two bed rooms one drawing and dining, two bath rooms, one kitchen etc. on the ground that he bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation as he was to ret re on November 30, 1984. The ejectment application was filed on June 11, 1984 The landlord was in occupation of the ground floor consisting of three bed rooms, drawing and dining Initially, ground floor was let out in the year 1973. However, later on the tenant was allowed to occupy the first floor in the year 1977. In view of his retirement, the landlord pleaded that he required the whole house for his occupation in view of the members living with him. In the written statement, the tenants pleaded that earlier, the rent of the premises was Rs. 425/- per month. Thereafter, he increased it to Rs. 500/- and then to Rs. 600/- per month. According to the tenants, the landlord wants to increase the rent from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 800/-per month; hence he filed the ejectement application The need of the landlord was not bone fide, inder Singh who is the wife's uncle of the landlord never stayed with them; nor Surinder Singh who is the wife's cousin. The accommodation with him was sufficient to meet his requirement. The learned Rent Controller held that the persons dependant upon the landlord for the purpose of accommodation are his wife, his wife's uncle and the brother of his wife. It was ultimately held that the accommodation with the landlord was insufficient and that he required one room for accommodating guests and one room for his wife for her meditation and, therefore, his need was bona fide. The plea of the tenant that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent was negative. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on January 18, 1985. In appeal, the learned appellate authority took the view that Inder Singh, uncle of the landlord's wife and Surinder Singh cousin of landlord's wife were not dependent on the landlord. Moreover, they did not come into the witness-box to state that they were residing with the landlord and. therefore, it could not be held, that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. According to the appellate authority, the plea of the tenant that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent from Rs. 600/ to Rs. 800/ per month seemed to be plausible in view of these findings, tie eviction order was set aside.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole approach of the appellate authority was wrong and illegal. The learned Rent Controller after apprising the entire oral evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was hot a fide and the said Inder Singh and Surinder Singh were the persons dependent upon him for the purpose of accommodation. The said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Smt. Eaibir Maur v. M/s. Chokesiri and Co. 1998 (2)Rent C. J. 316 and Jagdish Kumar v. Niranjan Lal, 1980 (1) R. L. R. 341 a Division Bench judgment of this Court, to contend that the expression 'his own occupation", cannot be given a meaning so as to restrict its application to the occupation by the landlord and his dependents only, nor (an it be given such a liberal meaning so as to include the seed of those family members also who are living with him temporarily )t was also pointed out that the findings of the appellate authority were contradictory.