JAGDISH LAL Vs. TARA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) BRIJ Mohan Lal was the original owner of the demised premises, Jagdish Lal was inducted by him as a tenant on the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- (twenty) Brij Mohan Lal died leaving behind his son Gopal Kishan as one of his natural heirs along with his other daughters. However, Gopal Kishan claimed himself to be the full owner of the demised premises and sold the same to Tara Devi landlady-respondent vide sale deed dated November, 15, 1979, Exhibit A. 2. The ejectment application for the eviction of the tenant was filed on September 6, 1980. The ejectment of the tenant from the premises, in question, was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlady bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. It was also pleaded that she had neither any residential building in the urban area concerned, nor had she vacated any such building after coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act). In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that he had no knowledge of the purchase of the house by Tara Devi, respondent. The other allegations made in the ejectment application were also denied. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlady required the demised premises for her self-occupation. It was also found that the landlady had led overwhelming evidence that she had got two rooms whereas there were nine members of the family. At least five of her children resided with her besides the old aged parents of her husband. This evidence has gone unrebutted. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller with the following observations :-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the original owner Shri Brij Mohan Lal died leaving behind four daughters, his widow and the son Gopal Kishan and that the said Gopal Kishan was not the sole owner of the property after the death of his father and any sale deed executed by him in favour of the landlady did not make her the full owner of the demised premises. According to the learned counsel, two daughters of the said Shri Brij Mohan Lal filed the suit for possession after partition to the extent of two-fifth share in their favour, which has been decreed on December 10,1983. He also pointed out that Shrimati Mamesh Kumari, a daughter of Shri Brij Mohan Lal also filed another suit for a declaration to the effect that the ejectment order dated October 20, 1982, obtained by Tara Devi, respondent, against Jagdish Lal, petitioner, was null and void with the consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendant Tara Devi from taking possession of the premises. Thus, argued the learned counsel in view of this litigation between the heirs of Brij Mohan Lal, no order of ejectment could be passed against the tenant Jagdish Lal. It was also contended that the landlady never pleaded that the present accommodation in her possession was insufficient to meet her requirement and, therefore, on that ground also, no ejectment order could be passed against him. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the other co-shares of the demised premises have not given their consent for the ejectment of the tenant, and, therefore, on that ground also, no ejectment order could be passed against him. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi 1980 (1) RCR 505 (1980 Punjab Law Reporter 613); A. Alagiyanathan v. M. Swaminatha Pillai, 1980 (2) Rent Law Reporter 752 and Tarlok Chand v. Guran Ditti, 1981 (1) Rent Law Reporter 216.