MANGAT RAM Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner landlord filed this petition for ejectment of the respondents from the portion of the house in dispute on rent with them on the grounds of subletting and personal bonafide requirement. The Rent Controller negatived the plea of subletting but upheld the other and ordered ejectment of the tenants. The finding of the Rent Controller on the question of subletting was affirmed but on the plea of personal requirement reversed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated July 23, 1980, resulting in the dismissal of the petition. Aggrieved thereby the landlord has come up into this revision.

(2.) THE challenge was confined before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the finding of the Appellate Authority on the question of bonafide requirement of the premises in dispute for his own occupation by the landlord. The facts found in this respect are that the house in dispute consists of 4 rooms, 2 kitchens, a verandah, a deodhi and courtyard. Two rooms, a kitchen and half of the verandah is on lease with the tenants and the remaining portion in possession of the landlord. When the application for ejectment was filed, the landlord was residing with one of his sons at Vijyawada in Andhra Pradesh. Two of his grown up sons, Banarsi Dass and Gopi Ram were residing in the house in dispute. The family of Gopi Ram consists of his wife, a daughter and a son. Banarsi Dass was residing alone and his wife had died and his only unmarried daughter was studying at Ferozepur.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relying on Shri Om Parkash Khosla v. Shri Om Parkash Tandon and another, 1978(1) R.L.R. 639, M/s. Sant Ram Dass Raj Kalka v. Karam Chand Mangal Ram A.I.R. 1936 Pb. 1 and Amrit Rai v. Mannu Ram, (1978)2 R.L.R. 433, contended that even if the landlord may have lived in discomfort in the past he cannot be forced to continue to do so and if in fact, the accommodation in his possession is insufficient, he would be entitled to seek ejectment of the respondents from the demised premises. The decision in M/s. Sant Ram Dass Raj's case (supra) has no bearing on the facts of the present case as what was held in that case was that where the landlord establishes that he made his application for eviction of the tenant in good faith; that he require the premises for his own occupation and further the premises already in his occupation did not meet his requirements and needs, he is entitled to evict the tenant. There could not be any quarrel with the proposition enunciated by the Full Bench. If the landlord is able to prove that he requires the premises for his own occupation, he would certainly be entitled to succeed but the finding here is that there is no bonafide need for the landlord to occupy the portion of the house in possession of the tenants. From Amrit Rai's case (supra) reliance was placed on the following observations :-