MEHAR CHAND SAHARAN Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants petition against whom eviction order hag been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlord Ravinder Kumar sought the ejectment of his tenant Mehar Chand Saharan from the premises in dispute which consists of two rooms, one kitchen, common bath room, common latrine, common courtyard of property unit No. B. II 542, Arya Mohalla, Ludhiana, on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from July, 1979, and that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation as the present accommodation in his occupation was insufficient. His family consists of his wife and children. He was married in the year 1975. At present he was occupying one room in the building adjacent to the building in dispute which is owned by five brothers. The site plan of the said house was also filed along with the ejectment application. The application was filed on December 18, 1979. In the written statement, the plea taken by the tenant was that he was not in arrieas of rent. Rather he had paid advance rent upto 1982, that is from August, 1979 to March, 1982. As regards the personal requirement of the landlord, it was pleaded that he does not require the premises at all. His need is mala fide and with ulterior motive. It was now where pleaded that the present accomodation in his occupation was not sufficient to meet his requirement. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant was in arrears from August, 1979, which rent was neither paid or tendered on the first date of hearing. The story put up by the tenant that he had paid advance rent upto March, 1982, was negatived. On the question of personal necessity, it was found that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide as the present accommodation in his occupation was insufficient. The plea of the tenant that the other tenants occupying the portion of the building in dispute had vacated and were re let by the landlord was negatived with the observation that the previous premises vacated and re-let were before the marriage of the landlord and at that time, it appeared that the premises were not required. It was after the marriage and the birth of the children that necessity tor more accommodation had arisen. As a result of these findings, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of nonpayment of arrears of rent It came to the conclusion that the tenant had paid advance rent from August, 1978 to March 1982. Thus, it was held that the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent was not proved. However, on the question of bona fide requirement, the finding of the Rent Controller was upheld Consequently the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the landlord has been found to be false and untruthful as regards the arrears of rent. According to the Learned Counsel, once he is found to be false and had not come to the Court with clean hands he was not entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant on any other ground. He also challenged the finding of the authorities below on the question of personal requirement It was contended that even the sister of the landlord who appeared as R. W. 4 Santosh Kumari had stated that the need of her brother landlord was not bona fide. According to the Learned Counsel, she being the co-sharer of the property in dispute, her statement could not be ignored In any case, argued the Learned Counsel that the landlord had re-let the premises when it had fallen vacant in the year 1973 and then again in 1978 and that being so he had failed to prove the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) to show that he has not vacated any other building in the urban area concerned without sufficient cause.