AAR COMPUTER SOLUTION Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is against the order of eviction passed in favour of the landlord in an application filed under Section 13 B of the Rent Restriction Act. The claim by the landlord was that he intended to start his business on return from USA where he has been living for the last over 19 years. The contention in defence was that there was no landlord tenant relationship and that the tenant took the property only from one Charan Singh. It was also the contention of the plaintiff that he has not expressed any particular time frame when the landlord wanted to commence his business on return to India or when he was going to return to India. The Court found the evidence given on behalf of the landlord by his wife to be adequate proof of his bonafide requirements and directed ejectment.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant argued that the landlord was alleged to have made a power of attorney to one Ramesh Chand Tiwari but the power of attorney was not even filed in Court. It is the further contention that the landlord Karnail Singh himself was not examined as a witness but only his wife had given evidence in her alleged capacity as co -owner. If she was the co -owner, she could have herself filed the petition and there was no reason given by the wife about any particular disability of her husband to come to Court to give evidence. He also argued that the tenant relationship of the tenant is only with one Charan Singh and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner and his wife to sustain the petition.

(3.) I asked the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to produce the evidence before the Rent Controller. I have the copy of the evidence given by the landlord's wife. I find that she speaks about the requirement of her husband as a person who has been living along with him and has given the details of when she and her husband migrated to USA for running a fast food and grocery business. She has also given the details of her passport and the desire of her husband and herself to return to India and that they have made the selection of Chandigarh as a beautiful city to have their own business. The wife has given evidence about the ownership of the property along with her husband. The argument that the petitioner was himself not examined to prove his personal necessity and hence the evidence cannot be taken to be tenable in the light of the Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said Section makes rule of evidence that in all the civil proceedings, the husband and wife shall be competent witness for the other spouse. There could be exceptional situation where the evidence made has to be with reference to certain matters which is only within the personal knowledge of one to the exclusion of others. If the husband sets out a case of necessity to return to India to start a business and that expression of intention finds vouched by the wife's version in Court, I will not find anything lacking in such evidence to doubt bonafides. I would take the wife's evidence of what I have read as adequate to uphold the plea of bonafides. There can be no tenable objection for the husband. The competency of spouse to give evidence on behalf of other spouse has been considered in some of decisions by reference to Section 120 of the Evidence Act. The following are the decisions: