KIRPAL SINGH Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition, on whose application eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord Kirpal Singh is presently serving as Havaldar in the military. He became the owner of the house in dispute by way of registered gift deed executed on 24th July, 1981, by Kartar Singh, his father-in-law, in his favour. He sought ejectment of his tenant primarily on the ground that he was a military personnel and secondly he bonafide required the premises to accommodate his family, which consists of his wife and three minor children. It was also pleaded that at the place of his posting no arrangements for family accommodation or education of the children were there. The tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between two parties. It was further pleaded that the children of the landlord were studying in village Sidhpur Kalan and School and College were available at Fatehgarh Sahib and Morinda. On trial the learned Rent Controller found that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further found that the plea of the landlord for his bonafide personal requirement was made out. Accordingly, ejectment of the tenant was ordered. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority maintained the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on question of bonafide requirement. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied by the same the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It cannot be denied that the landlord Kirpal Singh is serving in the military as a Havaldar. Earlier he was posted at Chandi Mandir and his children were getting education in Chandigarh. On his transfer from Chandi Mandir he had to shift his family to village Sidhpur Kalan. He has appeared in the witness box and stated that he wanted to get his children educated at Chandigarh as there in no good educational atmosphere at village Sidhpur Kalan. On that basis the learned Rent Controller found that the requirement was bonafide. However, the learned Appellate Authority reversed that finding on the ground that the landlord has not given the details of the proposed stay of his family at Chandigarh, his plea that he wanted to get his children educated at Chandigarh is not supported by any evidence, and thus it was only a mere wish and not bonafide requirement. The whole approach of the Appellate Authority is misconceived and thus the finding arrived at is vitiated. Admittedly, when the landlord was posted at Chandi Mandir; his children were getting education at Chandigarh. If now he wants to give education to his children at Chandigarh it cannot be said that it was a mere wish. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord did not require the premises for the occupation of his family. The observations of the Appellate Authority that "in view of the fact that his children are getting education at a village near Morinda and are living with his mother, it cannot be said that his plea of bonafide personal requirement is genuine" are based on surmises and conjectures. The landlord has been posted as Havaldar in the Military service, and, therefore, he is certainly entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant if he wants his family to be settled at Chandigarh in order to educate his children at Chandigarh. In this view of the matter this petition succeeds, the order of Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed 3 months' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for 3 months is deposited with the Rent Controller within one month from today. Petition succeeds.