BALKRISHAN Vs. AMAR NATH SHUKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amar Nath owns 5 Marlas double-storeyed House No. 1324 in Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. Since it was constructed, it has been in occupation of various tenants and was being managed by Bhagwant Kishore on behalf of Amar Nath. Amar Nath has been abroad for the last 43/50 years as he has been doing business in Africa and thereafter shifted to London where he stopped his business in 1959 due to weak eye-sight. He held British citizenship and all his children are also settled in United Kingdom. While he was still staying in London, he filed three ejectment petition against three of his tenants who are occupying different portions of the house, through Bhagwant Kishore, his attorney, on the grounds of tenants being in arrears of rent and for personal necessity. In the ejectment case against Balkrishan tenant, it was pleaded by the landlord that the agreed rent was Rs. 120/-. In the ejectment petition filed against Mohinder Singh, tenant, it was pleaded by the landlord that the landlord that the agreed rent was Rs. 100/- per month, whereas, in the third case, it was stated to be Rs. 65/- per month. In the first two cases, the tenants pleaded the rate of rent to be Rs. 47/- and 37/-per month respectively, whereas in the third case the tenant did not dispute the rate of rent. All the tenants pleaded that the landlord was still living abroad and he wanted to enhance the rent through the mukhtar and since the tenants refused to increase the rent, therefore, ejectment petitions were filed. It was pleaded that the landlord did not need the premises in dispute for his bonafide residence. The tenants had paid arrears of rent along with costs and interest on the first date of hearing at the rates quoted by them. During trial of the cases, on behalf of the landlord it was conceded that the rate of rent in the first case was Rs. 47/- and in the second case Rs. 37/-per month, as was pleaded by the tenants. Since arrears of rent along with interest and costs were tendered on the first date of hearing, the plea for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent failed. However, the Rent Controller found that the landlord needed the premises for his personal necessity and ordered ejectment of the tenants. the tenants went up in appeals and The appellants authority maintained the eviction orders passed by the rent controller. These are three revision petitions by the tenants. Civil Revision No. 194 of 1980 has been filed by Balkrishan tenant : Civil Revision No. 195 of 1980 has been filed by Mohinder Singh tenant and Civil Revision No. 1433 of 1980 has been filed by Jaswant Singh tenant. Since the matter is inter-connected, they are being disposed of together.

(2.) According to ht landlord's own case, he has been residing abroad for the last 40/50 years and has become a British citizen. He came seven months after the filing of the ejectment petition on a British passport and appeared as a witness and before the cases could be decided by the rent controller, he went back to London. Admittedly, he went back to London in the year 1978 and since then he has not come back. All his three children are also settled in United Kingdom. All these facts coupled with other facts and circumstances of the case, which will be noticed in the later part of the judgment, it will have to be seen whether there was really a genuine need for the landlord to have the house vacated from tenants for his personal residence.

(3.) In the ejectment petition filed against Balkrishan and Mohinder Singh tenants, a false plea was taken to the effect that agreed rent was Rs. 120/- and Rs. 100/- per month respectively. Before the rent controller, the landlord, through his counsel conceded that the rates of rent were Rs. 47/- and 37/- per month respectively. This shows that higher rent was sought to be claimed. In the ejectment case against Balkrishan tenant, the appellate authority recorded the following finding in Para No. 7 of its judgment :-