HAR DAYAL Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1167, 1187 and 1188 of 1984 as question involved is practically the same.

(2.) THE building in dispute is a residential one and consists of three storeys. There are many co-sharers who are the owners of the said building. Different portions of the said building are occupied by different tenants. The landlord Har Dayal was also a tenant of some portion in the said building. Vide sale deed dated 28th April, 1975 (Ex.AW-2/1), he purchased the entire building from one Mahesh Kumar alias Ram Lal. In the year 1978 he filed these three ejectment applications against different tenants inter alia on the grounds of non-payment of rent, sub-letting, personal necessity for his own use and occupation of the demised premises, building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the tenant having impaired the value and utility of the building. Two ejectment applications giving rise to C.R. No. 1167 and C.R. No. 1188 of 1984 have been dismissed by the authorities below on the ground that the landlord has filed to prove that there was a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, whereas, in the third ejectment application, giving rise to C.R. No. 1187 of 1984 it was found by the Rent Controller that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlord succeeded in establishing that he bonafide requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. Consequently, eviction order was passed. However, in appeal the learned Appellate Authority maintained the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but reversed the finding as regards the personal requirement of the landlord. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with this, the landlord Har Dayal has filed these three petitions in this Court.

(3.) AS regards the ejectment application giving rise to C.R. No. 1187 of 1984, it is the common case of the parties now that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between them because in that case admittedly the tenant Mohar Singh was inducted by Chuni Lal, whose share has been purchased by Har Dayal landlord vide sale deed dated 28th April, 1975 (Ex. AW-2/1). The Rent Controller passed the eviction order against the tenant on the ground that the landlord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and the earlier accommodation in his occupation was insufficient to meet his requirement, whereas the said finding has been reversed by the learned Appellate Authority who has come to the conclusion that the accommodation in occupation of the landlord was sufficient to meet his requirement, as one of his sons Roshan Lal was living separately from his father in a separate accommodation. One of the considerations which weighed with the Appellate Authority was that it was not understandable that what change or conditions occurred in the family of the landlord which necessitated him to file the ejectment application after three years of the purchase of the house, and how the accommodation in his occupation became insufficient to meet his needs.