J S SARAON Vs. AMRIT SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but was allowed in appeal.

(2.) The premises, in dispute, are a residential house, No.142, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, consisting of two bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining room, garage, kitchen etc. which was rented out to the tenant in Jan. 1974, at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Earlier also, the building was on rent with another tenant. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant primarily on the ground that he bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation and that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility thereof by constructing a pucca room in a corner of the building adjacent to house No.143, Sector 28A, Chandigarh. It was pleaded that the landlord was residing with his mother in house No.2134, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh, which belonged to his brother. On account of the strained relations between, his wife and his mother, it had become necessary for him to shift from the said house to his own house. It was also stated that he had two sons one of whom was studying in ninth class and the other was studying in second class. It was also pleaded that he was not occupying any other residential building, nor had he vacated any since the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, in the urban area concerned. In the written statement, it was pleaded by the tenant that initially, the rate of rent was Rs.475/- per month. In the year 1976, it was increased to Rs.500/- per month. It was denied that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. According to the tenant, the house in which the landlord was presently residing was fairly big and was sufficient to meet his requirement. The other allegations made by the landlord were also controverted. The learned Rent Controller negatived both the grounds of ejectment pleaded by the landlord and consequently dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord. The finding on the other issue viz., as to whether the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises, negativing the claim of the landlord, was maintained. As a result, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the requirement of the landlord was not at all bona fide. The dispute between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law was a made up story. The landlord has been occupying the house belonging to his brother and mother since the year 1968 which accommodation with him was sufficient for his purposes. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the finding of the learned Rent Controller, in this behalf, was correct which has been reversed in appeal on surmises and conjectures. It was also contended that the landlord did not come to the Court with clean hands because in the ejectment application he had stated that the house which he was occupying belonged to his brother whereas in his statement in the Court, he stated that it belonged to his mother and bsother. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Mehar Chand v. Tilak Raj, (1982) 1 Rent LR 306