JASWANT SINGH Vs. JAI RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the concurrent decision of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ordering eviction of the tenant. Jai Ram Singh filed the present petition under Section 13(3) (a) (i) for eviction of Jaswant Singh tenant on the ground that he required the premises for his own occupation and the occupation of his family members and was not in occupation of any accommodation in his own right. The tenant's plea was that the house in dispute fell vacant two years ago and the owner rented it out and did not move into it instead he shifted to the house of his brother- in-law Rattan Singh and, therefore, need of the landlord was not genuine. The short question that fell for determination before the Rent Controller was that whether the landlord required the house bonafide for his personal use within the meaning of Section 13 (3)(i). The Rent Controller found in favour of the owner and allowed the application. Against this decision an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority. At the stage of appeal an application was made to the Appellate Authority to allow the tenant to lead additional evidence. The additional evidence sought to be led was to the effect that the house where the landlord was living with his wife and children, half of it had been acquired by his wife and the other half already belonged to her and, therefore, in the latered circumstances there was no need so far as the landlord was concerned to get the house in dispute vacated. The Appellate Authority rejected the application for additional evidence and proceeded to deal with the appeal on merits. After hearing the parties the Appellate Authority affirmed the decision, the present petition for revision has been preferred.

(2.) Mr. Harbans Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision of the Appellate Authority as well as that of the Rent Controller cannot be sustained particularly in view of the altered situation whereby the wife became the full owner of the house in which she was living with her husband and children. At one stage I was inclined to accept this contention, but Mr. Sarin learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to a decision of Chief Justice Khosla in Civil Revision No. 561 of 1959, Purna Devi V. Sham Sunder Lal decided on 1st September, 1960. In this case the wife applied for the eviction of the premises belonging to her. The tenant took the plea that the husband was living in premises rented by him and the wife was living there and, therefore, there was no requirement for the wife to get the house vacated. This contention was repelled by the learned Chief Justice and he observed.

(3.) Mr. Harbans Lal urged that in order to judge whether the husband's application is bonafide or not, all the surrounding circumstances are to be taken into account. This contention could not be accepted in view of the pre-emtory language of Section 13 (3) (a)(i) The application can only be not treated as a bonafide if the landlord was in occupation of alternate accommodation in his own right, if not, it cannot be said that his application for ejectment of the tenant is not bonafide.