MOHD. HANIF Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is against the order of ejectment passed by the appellate Court under the Hayana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act of 1973. Of the several grounds urged, the Rent Controller found that the landlord had not established the case and had dismissed the petition. In appeal by the landlord, the appellate Court reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on (i) the ground of personal necessity of the landlord's requirement for residential purpose; (ii) for change of user of the building by the tenant for putting up a non-residential use. The appellate Court found as regards the personal requirement of the premises that the landlord had admitted to the ownership of yet another Door No.1-A/257, NIT, Faridabad, but it was a nonresidential property let out for commercial activity to one M/s Blue Steel Private Limited. Referring to the recitals in the rent deed which specifically contained a recital that the user of the premises shall be only for residential purpose, the Court held that the property was therefore only residential and the landlord could not have sought for eviction of the other building in 1-A/257 for his own personal need. Even otherwise, if there was more than one building of which the landlord was the owner, both of which were not in his possession, it was always left to the choice of the landlord as to which property he would secure eviction. The existence of another property in the name of the landlord himself was not in dispute, but if it was in the hand of yet another tenant and it was put to a nonresidential use. Evidently, the landlord could not have directed eviction in respect of the said property.

(2.) The other property of which the landlord was said to be the owner in the written statement of the tenant was the property in 1-B/2-3 and the Court found that the property was actually a property owned by his son Ravinder Kumar and Shanti Devi and even that property was also not actually in their possession, but had been already let out to tenants for which an independent eviction petition had been filed. The appellate Court had noted the fact that subsequent petition was filed by the son and the wife on 24.01.1997.

(3.) I find even the Act which sets out a rule of pleading and proof under Section 13(3) that a landlord applying for an order directing a landlord to put in possession is required only to show that "he is not occupying another residential building" in the urban area concerned and has not vacated such building. It is nobody's case that the landlord was occupying any other building within the same urban area. The reference to ownership to the property standing in the name of wife and son is not even a statutory mandate under the scheme of the Rent Control Act. However, in this case, when the statement has been brought pointing out to the availability of yet another property in the name of the wife and son, the landlord has made a clean breast of himself and has sought to explain that even in respect of the said property, there was still an action for eviction that was being pursued.