SUJAN SINGH Vs. SARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lt. Col. (Dr.) Sujan Singh filed an application for ejectment on 29th September, 1973, of his tenant Saran Singh from the 1st Floor of two Kanal house No. 654, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh, consisting of 3 bed-rooms, drawing-cum-dining, kitchen, store etc. He took four grounds of ejectment, (l) that the tenant was in arrears of rent, (2) that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises, (3), that the tenant was nuisance to the neighours, and (4) that the tenant needed the 1st Floor for his own residence. The petition was opposed by the tenant and he pleaded that the landlord was living in village Rangilpur, where he was Sarpanch and had his own agricultural farm, which he was managing and did not require the house in dispute. It was pleaded that in fact the landlord had been pressing him for increasing the rent to Rs. 350 and on his refusal to do so, the ejectment petition was filed. the other pleas were also denied. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the ground of personal necessity was proved and consequently ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The tenant went up in appeal and the learned Appellate Authority found that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide personal necessity and consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the ejectment order. In accepting the appeal, the learned Appellate Authority found that the landlord had his agricultural farin in village Rangilpur, where he was living and was carrying on his profession as a doctor, according to his own statement, at Ropar at a shop which is 6 Kms. away from the village and, therefore, it cannot be held that his plea to live in Chandigarh, 20 to 25 miles away from the places of residence and business, was bona fide. The learned Appellate Authority also was impressed by the fact that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, the landlord let out annexe portion of the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 120 which consisted of two commodious rooms of sizes 9'xl l' each, besides a store etc. which he could have occupied if he really wanted to live in Chandigarh and the letting out, during the proceedings, reflected seriously upon the genuineness and bona fides of the landlord to occupy the premises in question. This is landlord's revision from the aforesaid order.

(2.) After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and on perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that there is no scope for interference with the well considered decision rendered by the learned Appellate Authority. The learned counsel appearing for the landlord has invited my attention to the following decisions in support of the arguments that it is the choice of the landlord to occupy one portion or the other, whether to live in a village or shift to a town where better facilities are available and even to let out the premises which may fall vacant during the pendency of the proceedings if he thinks that that portion was not sufficient or suitable for his occupation :

(3.) Taking all the aforesaid facts into consideration, the learned Appellate Authority was justified in coming to the conclusion that the landlord failed to prove his bona fide necessity to occupy the house and the tenant was right in saying that he was asked to increase the rent and when he failed to do so, the ejectment petition was filed. I am not able to find any fault with the reasoning given by the learned Appellate Authority and consequently in revisional jurisdiction I cannot interfere with his findings.