MOHAN SARUP BHATNAGAR Vs. HARI KISHAN BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT -landlord claimed ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the house in dispute indispute on the ground of personal necessity. The case set up by him was that he is originally resident of Karnal where he was a practising lawyer till the year 1940 when he took up service ouside Karnal; that he had retired from service in the year 1967; got himself enrolled as an Advocate and is practising as such at Ambala since then; that he has been residing all these years at Ambala in a house owned by his son and that he wants to shift to Karnal to start his practices there and so needs the house in dispute for his own occupation. The claim of the landlord was refuted by the tenants on the ground that the former had no intention to shift to Karnal and his intention only was to increase the rent. They further pleaded that if the landlord wanted to shift to Karnal, the accommodation in his possession consisting of three rooms, one bath room, Kitchen and latrine was more than sufficient for his needs. The Rent Controller after noticing the evidence and the circumstances dismissed the application with the findings that the landlord had no bonafide intention to shift to Karnal and that the accommodation available with him was sufficient for his needs. On appeal, the Appellate Authority being of the view that it was entirely the landlord's choice as to where he wanted to settle after retirement, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and ordered ejectment of the tenants holding that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was insufficient to carry on the profession of an advocate. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants have come up in this appeal.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the landlord is residing at Ambala in a house owned by his son at his sufferance and therefore has a right to shift to Karnal and live in his own house. The vital question which falls for determination is as to whether he intends to start practice as an Advocate at Karnal and the accommodation in his possession is insufficient for his need. If he is not to pursue the profession of an advocate, the accommodation consisting of three rooms is certainly quite sufficient for him and his wife, there being no other member of his family dependent upon or expected to live with him.

(3.) THE rent of the house prior to February 1976 was Rs. 65 and increased thereafter to Rs. 80. This substantiates the stand of the tenants to a large extent that the intention of the landlord is nothing but to enhance the rent. Again, the landlord offered to let out one more room in February 1976 to the tenants vide letter, Exhibit R-5. Later on, this room was let out during the pendency of the petition to Messre Vijay Electricals in March 1977. Although the landlord has denied the letting out of this room but this stands proved beyond doubt from the fact that the goods of Messrs Vijay Electricals were admitted to be lying there. If the landlord had really intended to start his practice as an Advocate, he would have neither offered this room to the tenant-petitioners nor let it out to a business concern during the pendency of the petition from whom it cannot be possibly get vacated on any ground whatsoever. It may also be noticed here that after the filing of the petition for ejectment all the house-hold goods and furniture lying at Karnal were removed to Ambala which also shows that the landlord has no intention to shift to Karnal and settle there. On the basis of the facts and circumstance proved on the record, no authority could reasonably draw an inference that the landlord had bonafide intention to shift to Karnal and start his practice as an Advocate. The finding of the Appellate Authority in this regard is consequently reversed with the result that the accommodation at Karnal in possession of the landlord is held to be sufficient for his personal needs.