BISHAN SINGH Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, who is also the District Judge, Jullundur, dismissing the appeal preferred from the order of the Rent Controller Shri Harish Chander Gaur, ordering ejectment of the present petitioner from the premises in question. The application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act was presented sometime in September, 1962, the landlord's allegations being that the property in question, which is an evacuee property, had been purchased by him from the District Rent and Managing Officer and after making full payment, he had secured the sale certificate on 3rd September, 1960, thereby becoming full fledged owner thereof. The tenant had not paid the arrears of rent up to the presentation of the application for ejectment at the rate at which the rent used to be paid to the Rehabilitation Department. The property was also to have been damaged. The portion of the building in possession of the landlord was pleaded to be insufficient to accommodate his family consisting of 14 members, including his father and the family of his brother. On 18th January, 1963, the tenant tendered arrears of rent along with interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller, with the result that the ground of non-payment of rent was dropped. The tenant contested the application on various grounds including non-maintainability of the petition for eviction in the form in which it was filed. Damage to the house was denied and it was averred that the landlord had got another house and, therefore, he did not require the house in dispute. It was asserted that the eviction proceedings had been initiated with the sole object of increasing the rent.

(2.) The pleadings of the parties gave rise to two issues, but for our purposes, issue No. 2 is material which is in the following terms :-

(3.) On appeal, Shri Banwari Lal, the learned District Judge, acting as Appellate Authority was addressed only on one point, namely that the material on the record was not sufficient to establish that the landlord bona fide required the demised premises for his own occupation and that the tenant is, therefore, not liable to be ejected. After referring to the evidence on the record, the Appellate Authority has observed that the tenant had produced no evidence to show that the accommodation now in possession of the landlord is more than two rooms and a kitchen, as stated by him and his witnesses and that the landlord and his brother are not joint in business, mess and residence as claimed on their behalf. The Appellate Authority continued to observe that the tenant had also failed to produce any evidence to show that the number of the family members of the landlord is less than 12 or that the accommodation in possession of the landlord is sufficient for his requirement. On this premises, the learned Appellate Authority found no reason to disturb the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the landlord bona fide required the tenanted premises for his own occupation. On the point of damage, however, the learned Appellate Authority disagreed with the learned Rent Controller and observed that there was no sufficient material on the record to establish that the tenant had caused to the leased premises any damage likely to impair the value or utility thereof. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.