KARTAR SINGH SACHDEVA Vs. SHRI RAM ASRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question involved in this petition under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is whether the landlord required the house in dispute for his personal use and occupation. The case set up by him in the petition is that his son wants to start his own business at Yamunanagar and, therefore, needs the house for his residence. The landlord himself is carrying on timber business at Jammu Tawi and a similar business, it is alleged, his son wants to set up at Yamunanagar. The Rent Controller found no substance in his claim and rejected the petition. However, on appeal, the Appellate Authority revered its finding and ordered ejectment vide judgment dated April 3, 1981. Aggrieved thereby the tenant has come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) Apart from challenging the finding of the Appellate Authority on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, pointed out two legal infirmities which may be noticed and dealt with first. According to him, the need of the landlord would cover the need of his family members residing with and dependent upon him but would not include the need of an adult and independent son. It is not disputed that the son, when the application was made, was in education and residing with his father. But, it was urged that the moment the son sets up his independent business he would cease to be dependent on the father and as such for his need, the latter would not be entitled to get any accommodation vacated. The argument has no substance and is based on the assumption of future events which may or may not take place. The claim of the landlord has to be adjudged on the basis of the facts existing on the date of petition though future events, if relevant, may also be taken into consideration. But, in any case, the claim cannot be rejected on the assumption that any future event will take a certain turn. The contention raised, therefore, has no merit. Once this contention is rejected, the other ground urged that the landlord has failed to allege that his son has not vacated any such accommodation in the locality concerned must also fail because the landlord would be required to make such assertion in the petition only if he claims the possession of any accommodation for the residence of the married son. It may not, however, be understood from this that even if the son concerned has in his possession some premises in the locality concerned, the landlord will still be entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of his personal need. But at the same time, the claim of the landlord cannot be thrown out on the ground that he has failed to aver that his son has not vacated any such building.

(3.) On merits, however, it is difficult to sustain the finding of the lower Appellate Court and it has to be reversed. No doubt, the finding recorded by the appellate Court on the personal need of the landlord is a finding of fact and would not ordinarily be open to challenge in revision, but here I find that the said authority proceeded wholly a misconceived and untenable premises to upheld the claim of the landlord. It has been observed that the landlord had substantial business of timber at Yamunanagar and he wanted to settle his son there to look after the business or to start an independent business. From the evidence of the landlord it is evident that he only supplied goods from Jammu to his customers at Yamunanagar and apart from that he was not carrying on any business there itself. The question of looking after any business at Yamunanagar, therefore, could not arise. As regard the setting up of an independent business by the son apart from the mere wish of landlord, no circumstance has been brought on the record to show if there was any genuine intention to do so. Admittedly, the landlord has a flourishing business at Jammu and a branch at Pathankot. The extent of the business and strength of members of the family of the landlord who are engaged in it was never disclosed in the absence of which it is difficult to form an opinion if there was any need to settle the son at Yamunanagar. It is a thing of common knowledge that it is not easy to secure business premises in any flourishing town like Yamunanagar. The business of a timber merchant cannot be set up unless one is able to secure a spacious accommodation in a proper locality. An attempt, whatsoever, has been made by the landlord to secure any suitable premises where his son could set up his business and the desire continues to be a mere wighful thinking. The case thus does not travel beyond a mere wish of the landlord and it has not been established that the house is genuinely needed for the residence of his son.