KARAM SINGH Vs. MASTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below. The landlord Mastan Chand sought the ejectment of his tenant from the house in dispute on the ground that he bonafide require the premises for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that the tenant Karam Singh was inducted in the demised house by Shri Ram Ditta Mall, the father of the landlord Mastan Chand. Vide registered gift deed dated 14 March, 1980, the house in dispute was given by Ram Ditta Mall to his son Mastan Chand. Thus the relationship of landlord and tenant were established between the parties. Ejectment application was filed on 14th August, 1980. It was pleaded in the application that the present accommodation with the landlord was most insufficient and he was feeling suffocated there as his relations with the other members of the family were not good and cordial. The application was contested on the ground that earlier Ram Ditta Mall filed ejectment application on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation, which was dismissed on 27th November, 1979 vide Exhibit R.1. Later on he gifted the house in dispute vide the gift-deed dated 14th March, 1980, Exhibit A-1, which according to the tenant was sham transaction and was a device to eject the tenant. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord is having large family and living with his father, step-brothers and step mother and, therefore, his need to occupy the premises in dispute was most bonafide. It was also held that in the circumstances the gift-deed Exhibit A-1 could not be said to be sham transaction. Consequently eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellant Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very fact that earlier application filed by Ram Ditta Mall on this very ground of personal necessity was dismissed on 26th November, 1979, the gift deed dated 14th March, 1980 was a sham transaction and was a clear device to eject the tenant. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the whole approach of the authorities below was wrong and, therefore, the finding arrived at are vitiated. In support of his contention he referred to Devi Dass v. Mohan Lal, 1982 AIR(SC) 1213, wherein it was held that the tenant was entitled to challenge the transaction as sham and since in the case no such finding was given by the authorities below the case was remanded by the Supreme Court to record a finding on the question whether the sale of the building was a bonafide transaction or not.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in his petition. In the present case it has been found as a fact by both the authorities below that there was nothing on the record to show that the gift deed is a sham transaction. Once it is so found, then the judgment relied upon has no applicability to the facts present on the case. After coming to this conclusion it has been further found by both the authorities below that on the facts and circumstances of the case the requirement of the landlord was most bonafide. It again being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent any, and advance rent for three months is deposited with the Rent Controller, within one month and further he undertakes in writing that he will vacate the premises and handover the vacant possession after the expiry of the said period.