BALJIT KUMAR SHARMA Vs. RAMESH KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is filed at the instance of a tenant, who was ordered to be evicted by the appellate authority in reversal of the judgment passed by the Rent Controller. The landlord had several grounds to urge for eviction that included a prayer for personal requirement for his own occupation. It was a residential building and the landlord's contention was that he had only one house from ancestral property and in that house, he got one room at the first floor which was most insufficient for the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner would contend that he had two sons of the age of 20 and 19 years and two daughters of the age of 17 and 6. The tenant entered a defence that the landlord had concealed the fact that he was not merely in possession of one room in the ancestral property but the property itself had been constructed during the course of proceedings to five floors. The Rent Controller found that the tenant had not established his need and dismissed the petition. The appellate authority adverted itself only to the ground of personal requirement of the landlord and reversed the decision of the Rent Controller. The appellate authority observed that the landlord had not been lacking in bona fides and he had actually allowed for the tenant to continue in spite of the landlord's purchase of property 6 years earlier and he had sought for eviction only when the last of his children grew to 6 years of age and when his own need was imminent. The tenant, who had been ordered to be evicted, is in revision before this Court, urging that the appellate authority had not properly considered the weight of evidence placed before the Rent Controller on the basis of which the Rent Controller dismissed the petition. He would contend that the averment in the petition itself was that the landlord was in possession of only one room, while the tenant had stated in his reply that he was in possession of not merely one room at the first floor in his ancestral property but the major portion of the first floor as also the second floor. The tenant had made a specific contention regarding the fact that the ingredients of the landlord's requirement had not been properly pleaded or proved. The petition for reception of additional evidence has also been sought at the instance of the tenant to contend that the landlord had actually constructed three more floors and has filed a suit against the Municipal Committee for a restraint against any action for alleged violation of certain regulations for the additional construction. This document, according to the tenant, would prove that the landlord is in occupation of sufficiently large accommodation. The additional evidence is also brought to the effect that the sons' requirements, as sought to be proved before the Rent Controller, was not genuine, since the sons themselves have suffered a punishment of imprisonment for life for alleged murder of step-mother. This contention however does not appear to be correct since the documents filed also reveal that in a further appeal to this Court, the conviction rendered by the Sessions Court was set aside and the sons were acquitted.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that the building in the occupation of the tenant is a residential portion. The eviction is sought on the ground of landlord's requirements for housing himself with a growing size of his family with 4 children. The tenant's contention refutes the landlord's averment regarding his alleged possession of only one room in the ancestral property. The statutory mandate under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act is contained as regards the landlord's requirements in Section 10(3)(a) which reads as follows:-

(3.) The requirement is, therefore, that the landlord shall not be occupying another residential building. The interpretation to this Section has been that if he is in possession of any other building and if it is shown to be inadequate for the requirements by the size of the family, the landlord could still be stated to be not in possession of any other residential building. In this case, the averment in the petition is rested on his alleged possession of one room in the first floor. At the trial, the document of a partition decree was itself produced as evidence. It is seen from the records that a decree had been passed on 21.11.1981 among the landlord, his brothers and mother with reference to the property in Door No. 38 and half portion of Door No. 39 and in the partition, the property depicted through a plan in respect of both door numbers 38 and 39 showed that the landlord had been allotted the portion denoted in red colour in the first floor and the barsati portion in the second portion at the terrace. Evidently, the landlord had in his possession of documents that clearly delineated his area of entitlement.