RADHE SHAM Vs. RUCHI RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the demised shop is required for bona fide personal necessity of the landlady-respondent.

(2.) NECESSARY facts in brief may be noticed in order to put the controversy in its proper perspective. The landlady-respondent Ms. Ruchi Rajput filed an ejectment petition being Rent Case No. 40 of 26.11.1998 against the tenant- petitioner seeking his ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide necessity. She is a Graduate from the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, Punjab (for brevity, 'the Board') and is a registered Medical Practitioner under the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963 (for brevity, Rs.1963 Act') and as such she is entitled to practice as a doctor within the State of Punjab. She is otherwise physically handicapped. It has also been conceded that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was initially claimed that the tenant-petitioner had agreed to vacate the demised shop at the end of October, 1988. However, he refused to do so. The demised shop is alleged to have fallen to the share of landlady-respondent in a family settlement. The shop is situated in Mohalla Mohabbat Nagar, Railway Road, Kapurthala. It was given to her with the object of accommodating the landlady-respondent at the place where other family members reside and she has social connections. It is admitted position that vide notice dated 23.7.1998, the tenant-petitioner was informed by the landlady-respondent and her father that the ownership of the demised shop stood transferred in the name of landlady-respondent in a family settlement and that he started paying rent to her. However, the tenant-petitioner has claimed that the family settlement is a sham transaction and is a pretence to create the ground for his ejectment.

(3.) MR . Padam Jain, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has vehemently argued that under the Hindu Law, a female whether major or minor has no share in the property and, therefore, the landlady-respondent did not have any pre- existing right to claim the demised shop from her father. Learned counsel has submitted that in the case of Hiraji Tolaji Bagwan (since deceased by LRs.) v. Shakuntala, AIR 1990 SC 619 it has been held that a family settlement created from the ancestral property in favour of the female was held to be a sham transaction and, therefore, the ejectment petition filed by the landlady- respondent is liable to be rejected. It has further been pointed out that such a family settlement was in any case required to be registered as it transfers immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and others, AIR 1966 SC 196. It has further been submitted that the landlady-respondent has got married and is happily settled at Hoshiarpur and would not any longer be requiring the demised shop for her personal occupation.