CHETAN DASS GUPTA Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHETAN Dass Gupta has been occupying the residential house in dispute as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 41.50 since the time of its previous owners. Originally, the house was owned by Ishwar Chand. After the death of Ishwar Chand, Narinder Nath Gupta son of Ishwar Chand filed an ejectment application against the tenant in which the tenant tendered the rent upto 31.10.1977. Vide registered sale deed dated 29.3.1978, Narinder Nath and his brother sold the entire house to Smt. Sushila Devi for Rs. 20,000/-. She thus became the landlord and filed ejectment petition on 4.10.1978 claiming ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The exact averments in this behalf are contained in paras 6 to 9 of the petition, which are reproduced below.

(2.) THE tenant contested the application and pleaded that the applicant was the daughter of Ishwar Chand, deceased landlord, and after his death, she was one of the owners along with other 7 heirs of Ishwar Chand and the sale deed, if any, was a fictitious transaction and was got executed as a device to seek his ejectment. In reply to paras 6 to 9 it was pleaded that the applicant and her husband had already in their possession separate accommodation which was more than sufficient for their living, which consisted of more than nine rooms in an area of more than 400 sq. yards. It was denied that due to shortage of accommodation Subhash Kumar son of the applicant was, living separately. On the other hand, it was pleaded that he separated from his father about 2/3 years ago and is living separately of his own accord. The Rent Controller by order dated 27.5.1980 came to the conclusion that the landlord needed the premises in dispute that the house already in occupation of the landlady, her husband and second son was not sufficient to accommodate the third son, namely, Subhash Kumar and, therefore, the house in dispute was needed for the residence of the third son and his family. The conclusion was recorded in para 14 of the judgment, as follows :

(3.) ACCORDING to the legal position enunciated above, a landlord will have to plead that his married son is not occupying any residential premises in the urban area concerned besides pleading the other matters before an order of ejectment can be obtained. In the present case, this was not so done. On the other hand, it was admitted that he was living in a rented house. If the accommodation with her son was not sufficient, yet it was open to the landlady to plead that the accommodation with her son was sufficient for his residence and he would not be covered by exception (a) because what is meant by exception (a) is that there must be a reasonable accommodation in occupation of the married son. In this behalf, there is no plea on the record muchless the proof. The relevant part in the examination-in-chief of Subhash Kumar, who appeared as A.W.4, is as follows :