GURDEV SINGH Vs. SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The house in dispute was let out by one Hargobind Dass to Gurdev Singh as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 70. Hargobind Dass died on 11th October, 1975, leaving a will dated 12th May, 1975 in favour of Surinder Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Vijay Kumar, sons of Rana Partap. Some time there after, the there legatees filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant on two grounds -(i) for personal necessity and (ii) on account of arrears of rent from Ist May, 1974 onwards till the filing of the ejectment petition. On 11th June, 1975 the tenant was served with the ejectment petition for 16th June 1976. On 16th June 1976 which was the first date of hearing both the parties put in appearance and case was adjourned to 30th June, 1976. On 30th June, 1976, nobody appeared on behalf of the tenant and the Rent Controller ordered ex-parte proceedings against the tenant and adjourned the case to 12th July, 1976 for the evidence of the landlord. On 12th July, 1976, the evidence led on behalf of the landlord was recorded in part and for the remaining evidence the case was adjourned to 23rd July, 1976. Even 12th July, 1976 none appeared on behalf of the tenant. On 23rd July, 1976, the tenant put in an application for setting aside exparte proceedings. At this stage, it must be noticed that to save eviction on the ground of non payment of rent first proviso to Section 13 (2) (i) of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short Act) provides an opportunity to the tenant to pay or tender the arrears of rent and interest together with costs within a period of fifteen days of the first hearing of the application for ejectment failing which no option is left with the court except to order eviction of the tenant. The proviso would be quoted later at the relevant stage. For the present, it would suffice to notice that within fifteen days from 16th June, 1976 the tenant did not try to tender the arrears of rent. As regards interest and costs, that is the duty of the court to assess and if, it fails to do so within fifteen days of the first hearing an if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent within fifteen days, he cannot be held liable to ejectment. But as already said, not only the tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the first hearing, he failed to do so even on 23rd July, 1976 when he put in appearance although fifteen days from the first hearing had expired on 1st July, 1976 set aside the ex parte proceedings on payment of Rs. 25/- as costs and adjourned the case to 29th November, 1976. On 29th November, 1976, the Rent Controller was on leave an the Reader put up the case for 3rd December, 1976. In the meantime on 30th November, 1976 the tenant filed an application for determination of interest and costs and for permission to deposit the arrears of rent and costs of Rs. 25/- which were imposed for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. On that very date, the interest and costs were determined by the Court and the tenant tendered arrears of rent along with costs and interest, etc., amounting to Rs. 992/- which was accepted by the counsel for the landlord under protest by saying that the tender was invalid as it was not in compliance with the proviso which could save the ejectment. Thereafter, necessary issues on both the grounds of ejectment were framed by the Rent Controller who was the sub Divisional Officer (Civil)., executive authority, on whom the power under the Act had been conferred (which now again have been vested in the judicial officers of Civil Courts). That very executive officer as Rent Controller did not find merit in the two ground of ejectment and rejected the application on 27th February, 1978. Against the aforesaid order, the landlord went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed on 7th June, 1976 and an order of ejectment was pased on both the grounds raised in the ejectment application. It deserves to be noticed that before the Appellate Authority, the landlord had amended his ejectment application to precisely state all the ingredients as required by the Act for obtaining ejectment and in the ground of personal necessity, and was allowed to lead evidence in support of the amended ingredients while an opportunity was given to the tenant to rebut the same. Dissatisfied with the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority, the tenant has come up in revision.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority is well based and calls for no interference. The house in dispute is situated in the New Industrial township of Faridabad and is owned by three brothers. Two of them are serving beyond the limits of New Industrial township of Faridabad. Only Naresh Kumar Landlord resides in the New Industrial Township of Faridabad with his Father. From the evidence brought on record, it is clear that Naresh Kumar is marred and wants to have a separate living in the house in dispute. His need to live separate has been established from the evidence on record and it has not been shown that there was any ulterior motive on his part for obtaining an order of ejectment. It is true that when the ejectment application was filed, Naresh Kumar was not married but that would not disentitle the filing of the ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller was influenced by the fact that when the ejectment application was filed, as that time Naresh Kumar was not married and, therefore, no ground for personal necessity was made out. The personal necessity has to be seen at the time of passing the ejectment order. The Rent Controller noticed the fact that long before he was deciding the application, Naresh Kumar had been married but he declined the relief with the following observations -

(3.) Even if the house in dispute was owned by the father of the landlords, under Section 13(3) (A) (ii) of the Act, the father could have the house in dispute vacated for the residence of his married son. Therefore, viewing the case from any angle, a case for personal necessity of the house in dispute by Naresh Kumar, who was married in the year 1977 and by now admittedly has children, was fully established.