RAM CHANDER Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed on behalf the tenant against whom the order of ejectment has been passed by both the Courts below.

(2.) RAM Chander (now deceased) of the respondents sought the ejectment of the tenant from the residential building situated in Pataudi, District Gurgaon, inter alia on the ground that the bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The premises, in question, were rented out to the tenant on October 18, 1965, at the rate of Rs. 20/ - per month. It was pleaded in the ejectment application, that the accommodation in his possession at Delhi on the second floor, was sufficient, that he wanted to shift to Pataudi and that for that purpose, he required the premises in dispute, for his occupation. The allegation made in the ejectment application were controverted on behalf of the tenant. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Phool Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, 1973 R.C.R. 364 (S.C.): A.I.R, 1973 Supreme Court 2110, after the death of the original landlord, the eviction order passed in his favour on the ground of his bonafide requirement for his personal use and occupation, was liable to be set aside. This contention of the learned counsel has no force in view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in Shatilal Thakordas and others v. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala, 1976 R.C.R. 828 (S.C.): A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 2358 in which the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Rani's case (supra), has been overruled. It has been held therein that in the case of an eviction suit on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for occupation as a residence for himself and members of family, after the death of landlord right to sue survives to the member of the deceased landlord's family. The requirement of occupation of family members of the landlord cannot be said to be the requirement of the landlord himself and does not, therefore, cease of his death. After the death of original landlord, the senior member of his family takes his place and is would competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation and the occupation of other members of his family. In the present case the Appellate Authority, after discussing the entire evidence has given a firm finding that both the husband and the wife wanted to shift to Pataudi; their ancestral place where the premises, in dispute, are situated, to live happily in the demised premises - their ancestral house. It has been further found as a fact that the accommodation with them at Delhi was very small and was not sufficient for their purpose. In any case, it is immaterial because once it is held that the landlord intends to shift to his ancestral house and that intention is found to be bonafide one, then the accommodation with him at Delhi loses its significance. However, it has been concurrently held by both the Courts below, that the requirement of the landlord is a bonafide one. I do not find any illegality or impropriety therein as to be interfered with in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.