L.D. KHANNA Vs. J.K. PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE building in dispute, is located along the G.T. Road, Jalandhar City. It was originally owned by Sh. Shadi Ram Chopra who had inducted the petitioner, the sole proprietor of M/s. G.D. Khanna and Sons, as a tenant thereon in the year 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. After the death of the said Shadi Ram Chopra in the year 1963, his only daughter Shrimati Savitri Devi succeeded him and, thus, became the landlady qua him. She also died in the year 1973. On her death, she was succeeded by two sons, Jiwan Lal Puri and J.K. Puri and her husband Shri Sohan Lal Puri. Thus, the said three persons became the landlords qua after her death. They filed the ejectment application against the tenant on February 14, 1977, seeking his ejectment from the premises on the ground that these were rented out for residential purpose but the tenant had without the consent of the landlords, changed the use of a portion thereof on the ground floor by converting one room into a shop. It was also pleaded that, he had made material alterations in the demised premises by removing the intervening walls and adding an office and store room in the front room of the premises while converting them into a shop. According to the landlords, this alteration had resulted in impairing the value and utility of the premises. It was further pleaded that J.K. Puri, one of the landlords, along with his family was residing in the house of his father Sohan Lal Puri and that he required the premises, in question, for his personal use and occupation as he wanted to live separately from his father. The allegations made in the ejectment application were controverted by the tenant. It was pleaded by him that the premises in question, were taken by him on rent from Shri Shadi Ram Chopra, on the basis of the rent note dated, January 4, 1958, mark A, but the tenancy was to begin from January 15, 1958. It was also pleaded that the original landlord had got the ground floor changed into a shop and that a sum of Rs. 1,800/- was paid as advance rent for six months. The tenant-firm had taken the ground floor of the premises for running a shop. Prior to the inception of the tenancy, the ground floor of the premises was being used as office by the Asian Assurance Company while in the upper portion thereof the Manager of the said company used to reside. Regarding the personal necessity of J.K. Puri, Landlord, to occupy the premises for his own use and occupation, it was stated by the tenant that the bungalow of Shri Sohan Lal Puri where the said landlord along with his family was residing, was a huge building having scores of rooms besides an annexe which had been rented out to Shri P.K. Bhatnagar, Income-tax Officer. A plea was also taken that J.K. Puri, landlord, along with his family, has separated from his father for the last about 15 years and was residing in the said commodious building of his father Shri Sohan Lal and, thus, he did not require the building, in dispute, bonafide for his use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that the rent note, mark A, had not been duly proved. According to him, there was no evidence on the file to prove the execution of the rent note, mark A and that the same was signed by Shri Shadi Ram Chopra. So, the terms of the rent note could not be ascertained without proof of its execution. On the question of the bonafide need of J.K. Puri, landlord, to occupy the premises for his use and occupation, it was found that he required the premises bonafide as such. The plea of the landlords that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the premises by making alterations therein was also accepted. It was found that since the intervening walls had been removed by the tenant, it had certainly weakened the building. On these findings, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the bonafide requirement of J.K. Puri, landlord, to occupy the premises. According to it, the sole ground on which the said landlord wanted to reside separately from his father was that his wife was having strained relations with his father, but this fact was never disclosed in the ejectment application; especially when it was not his case that the accommodation in the bungalow of his father was inadequate. It was further found by it that admittedly the wife of Shri Sohan Lal Puri, had already expired. The family of J.K. Puri, landlord, comprised of his two sons and his wife. His eldest son was studying in B.A. (Final) and was 22 years old. Thus, keeping in view the limited number of the members of the family of J.K. Puri, there was no cause but to hold that the accommodation in his possession along with his father Shri Sohan Lal Puri was quite sufficient for his need and the finding of the Rent Controller to the effect that J.K. Puri, landlord, required the premises for his bonafide need was not sustainable. However, as regards the material alterations in the demised premises, the finding of the Rent Controller in that behalf was affirmed. Thus, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the pleadings and the relevant evidence on the record.