MANMOHAN LAL Vs. GURU DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the landlord and it arises out of eviction proceedings. The brief facts of the case are as under :

(2.) Manmohan Rai (now the petitioner) let out the premises consisting of one chaubara, store, a kitchen, a latrine and a compound in front of the chaubara (hereinafter called the premises), which form a part of residential building No. B-IV-765 situate in Walt Gunj, Ludhiana, to Guru Dutt Sharma (now the respondent) at monthly rent of Rs. 25/- on July 26, 1959, for a period of 4 months. He made application for eviction of the respondent from the premises on August 4, 1970, to the Court of Rent Controller, Ludhiana. The grounds for seeking his eviction were two; firstly, the non-payment of rent and it was alleged that he had fallen in arrears of rent with effect from July 1, 1969 and had not paid the same, and, secondly, that the petitioner required the premises for the residence of his son-Ramesh Kumar, who was married on February 28, 1970 and had to be accommodated in a separate portion of the building. The respondent contested the eviction application. He admitted the factum of tenancy and on the first date of hearing he tendered the arrears of rent, interest thereon and costs assessed by the Court. The petitioner, therefore, gave up the ground of non-payment of rent for claiming eviction. The respondent controverted the other allegations of the petitioner and pleaded that the petitioner had sufficient accommodation with him and the alleged necessity for providing separate residence to the : petitioner's son was not bonafide. Hence, the eviction application was tried on the following issues :

(3.) Mr. R.M. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority that the need of the petitioner for the premises was not bonafide and contends that it (the Appellate Authority) has erred in vacating the finding of the Rent Controller on Issue No. 1. The short question for decision, therefore, is whether the requirement of the premises by the petitioner for the residence of his son-Ramesh Kumar, who was married on February 28, 1970, i.e. about six months before the institution of the eviction application, is bonafide. "bonafide" means "In good faith" or "genuine". Since the use of a building is an incident of ownership, the Courts would ordinarily be loath to confiscate the right of the owner to occupy the building for his own use or for the residence of his married sun. At the same time, it cannot be forgotten that housing is a necessity of life and the object of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is to afford protection to tenants and prevent their unreasonable evictions. Therefore, ordinarily the decision of the landlord in the matter of his need of the building for his occupation or for the use of his married son should carry weight, and the Court or the tenant would not substitute its or his opinion for his decision. So, the statement on oath of the landlord in the matter of requirement of building for his personal use or for occupation of his married son should prima facie prevail. But, it cannot be maintained that there is any inflexible rule that whenever a landlord comes to the Court with a claim that he requires a particular premises for his occupation or for his son's residence, his claim has to be taken as the last word on the question. The Courts have undoubtedly the jurisdiction to go into the question whether or not he really needs a particular building for his residence. Before an order of eviction is recorded on the ground of personal necessity, the Courts have to come to the conclusion that the need of the landlord to occupy the building is bonafide or, in other words, real or genuine.