SHRI MAKHAN SINGH Vs. SHRI SHADEV RAJ SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent moved this petition for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises consisting of one room and kitchen on the first floor of the house in dispute. He pleaded that he retired from the Military service with effect from February 1, 1980 and his family of seven members consisting of his wife and his dependent children intends to shift to Chandigarh and occupy the house in dispute. The petitioner controverted the allegations and pleaded that the landlord only wanted to enhance the rent and has no intention to shift to Chandigarh from Gurgaon where he has been living for the last ten years. The Rent Controller negatived the plea of the landlord and dismissed the petition. One of the reasons given by the Rent Controller was that one room on the ground floor had fallen vacant but instead of occupying it, the landlord had let it out to one Ajmer Singh. At the appellate stage it was pointed out that Ajmer Singh, had since handed over possession of the room to the landlord and on that ground alone the judgment of the Rent Controller was reversed and ejectment of the petitioner ordered.

(2.) During the pendency of the petition in this Court, the tenant filed an affidavit that the order whereby one Gurdev Singh was ejected from the first floor consisting of two rooms, one verandah, bath room and the second floor comprising of one room had become final by the dismissal of the Civil revision in limine by this Court. The appellate order having been passed on October 14, 1983, the landlord has not sought the ejectment of the tenant. If the landlord had really intended to shift to Chandigarh, he had enough accommodation to do so because excepting one room and kitchen in possession of the petitioner, the whole house was at his disposal. In spite of the notice having been given of the additional affidavit filed by the tenant, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the landlord. Not only that even there was no representation made on his behalf at the time of hearing although his counsel was awaited on two/three days. The affidavit filed by the petitioner has, therefore, to be accepted and the facts stated therein leave no manner of doubt that the landlord does not want to shift to Chandigarh, or occupy the house in dispute for his own use. If he had any intention to shift to Chandigarh, four rooms apart from kitchen and bath etc. were available for his occupation and he would have certainly done so soon after the ejectment of the other tenant. This would have further strengthened his case for the ejectment of present tenant as well. Instead of doing so, he allowed the ejectment tenant to continue in possession and in all probability at the enhanced rate of rent. The finding of the lower Appellate Court not only stands vitiated because of the changed circumstances but also because the facts and circumstances available on the record were never discussed and the ejectment was ordered only on the ground that the room which was in occupation of Ajmer Singh had since been vacated. The finding of lower Appellate Court, therefore, cannot be sustained and is hereby reversed.

(3.) In the result, this petition is allowed, the impugned order set aside and the ejectment petition dismissed. No costs.