GURDEEP SINGH Vs. SMT. HARJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kuldip Singh was the original owner of the residential house in dispute, situate in the town of Panipat, which he had let out to Ajit Singh. The rent payable was Rs. 48/- per month besides house tax. On the death of Ajit Singh, the house was occupied by his children namely Gurdeep Singh and Gurdeep kaur. Kuldip Singh sold the house in dispute vide sale deed Ex. A.2 dated 21st May, 1975 to Smt Harjeet Kaur. At the time of sale, the tenants were in arrears of rent with effect from 1st January, 1973 and by the same document, the purchaser was authorised to recover rent from the tenants with effect from that date. Soon after purchaser Smt Harjeet Kaur gave notice to the tenants to vacate the premises as she required the same for her personal use. Since the tenants did not vacate she filed an ejectment application on 5th December, 1975, on the grounds of non-payment of rent with effect from 1st January, 1973; for her personal occupation as her husband was in Army and was posted at a far off place like Deenapur in Assam State and wanted her children to be educated at Panipat where her father-in-law also resided and that the house was unsafe and unfit for human habitation as the walls had cracks and the roofs were likely to fall down. These allegations were denied by the tenant. On the issues framed in the case, the evidence was led by the parties and the learned Rent Controller by order dated 18th February, 1980, came to the conclusion that none of the grounds raised by the landlord was made out and, consequently, dismissed ejectment application. The landlord felt dissatisfied and went up in appeal and the Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 23rd May 1980 found two grounds of ejectment in favour of the landlord and the third ground against her with the result that the appeal was allowed and the order of ejectment was passed. The Appellate Authority found that the landlord needed the house for her personal use as she wanted to stay at Panipat and educate her children there as her husband was posted at a far off place in the Military service. It also concluded that from the evidence of the landlord coupled with the statement of Gurdip Singh tenant, it was established that the roofs of the house had been supported with pillars and therefore, concluded that the house had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. This is tenants revision.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that there is not scope for interference in this revision. The landlord appeared in the witness-box and stated that she needed the house for her residence and wanted to educate her children there because her husband was posted in the Army at far off places and sometimes at non family stations. It is true that mere desire of the landlord is not enough and a bonafide need to occupy the house has to be established. Circumstance that neither she nor her husband owns any other house at Panipat; the facts that she has children, her husband is posted as an Army Officer at far off place link Deenapur in Assam State and the fact that sometimes he may be posted at non-family station, the need of the landlord to have independent living in the house purchased by her in the town where her in laws also stay cannot be termed as mala fide or a cases other than that of bonafide need unless any other evidence to contradict the same is brought on record. No such material has been brought on the record I am in agreement with the Appellate Authority that the Rent controller took a conjectural view of the matter in declining ejectment on the ground of personal necessity merely because when the present landlord purchased the house it was occupied by a tenant. Whichever house was available to her at reasonable price, within her means, she purchased it and since there was a tenant she had to seek his ejectment. It cannot be laid down as a rule that if a house in occupation of a tenant is purchased the new purchaser can never get it vacated on the ground to personal necessity as at the time of purchase it was well known to him/her that it was in occupation of a tenant. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority on this ground of ejectment is upheld.

(3.) Coming to the second ground of ejectment, the landlord has produced witnesses who have stated that the condition of the building is unsafe and that the roofs thereof are supported with pillars. I have gone through the statement of Gurdip Singh tenant as RW-1 who himself admitted in cross examination that the roofs of the house have the support of the pillars, although he denied that the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. On these facts, the learned Appellate Authority is perfectly right in coming to the conclusion that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation because the moment the support of the pillars under the roofs is removed, the roofs will fall down. Accordingly, this finding of the Appellate Authority is also upheld.