HANS RAJ Vs. RAM PAL PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed on behalf of Hans Raj, tenant, against whom the order of eviction has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlord Ram Pal Pathak, sought the eviction of the tenant from the premises, in dispute; which consists of a house, inter alia on the grounds that the son of the landlord named Bhanu Partap was an Advocate who had started his practice at Rupnagar since April, 1977 and thus, he bona fide required the premises, in dispute, for the residence of his said son. The one room (baithak), was, of course, in possession of his son which he was using as his office, but the same was hardly sufficient for his office as well as residence. He was experiencing great difficulty and so the premises were required urgently for his residence. It was specifically mentioned in the ejectment petition that neither the landlord nor his son were occupying any residential building in the urban area concerned. The baithak in the premises, presently occupied by the said son from the very beginning was being used as the office of the lawyer and that the said baithak was insufficient for the residence of the landlord's son and the other family members. Besides, the said baithak consisted of only one room. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the application had been filed with mala fide intentions to enhance the rent of the house, in question, or to force him to purchase the house at unreasonable high price. It was also pleaded that earlier also, the landlord had filed an eviction petition inter alia on the ground of his own use and occupation which was ultimately dismissed by the Rent Controller on January 18, 1977, vide order Exhibit R-9, wherein it was held that the landlord had failed to prove the bona fide requirement for his own use and occupation. Later on there was criminal proceedings between the parties and the present application had been filed with the mala fide intention to counter act the said criminal proceedings initiated by the tenant against Bhanu Partap the son of the landlord. It was specifically pleaded that there was no ground to eject the tenant from the premises, in dispute. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord, the allegations made in the ejectment application were reiterated. It was specifically pleaded therein that the house was urgently needed for the residence of his son Bhanu Partap, Advocate. On the pleadings of the parties, the relevant issue for the purpose of this petition was issue No. 1, which was to the effect whether the premises, in dispute, were bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of his son Bhanu Partap, Advocate. In view of this finding, the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant-petitioner. In appeal, the learned appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller in the following terms :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ejectment application was filed with mala fide intentions. The earlier ejectment application filed on behalf of the landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated January 13, 1977, Exhibit R-9, wherein it was found that the landlord had failed to prove that he bona fide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the landlord could seek the ejectment of the tenant under Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act), if he required it for use as an office, or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as a lawyer or for the residence of his son who is married, if his son is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office or residence as the case may be, and his son has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the only plea taken in the eviction petition is that the landlord required the premises for the residence of his son Bhanu Partap who had started his practice at Rupnagar. This by itself, was no ground for the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises under the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It was also contended that under the Act, every ground for ejectment was independent of each other and was to be proved as such before an order of ejectment could be passed. The landlord failed to prove that he required the premises for the office of his son Bhanu Partap, Advocate. Rather he pleaded that he required the premises for his residence which ground was available only if the son was a married one which was not the plea taken in the eviction petition.