HARIVANSH SINGH Vs. MALOOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction orders have been passed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant from the residential building which was let out to him in the year 1970 at the monthly rent of Rs. 50 which rent was later on increased to Rs. 75 on the ground of bona-fide requirement for his own use and occupation. The landlord purchased the said house in the year 1957. According to the allegations in the ejectment application, landlord suffered heart-attack in January, 1979. It was pleaded that he was suffering from heart-ailment and he was not in occupation of any other residential house in the urban area concerned, nor has he vacated any after the coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act). The tenant contested the landlord's claim and denied if his requirement was bonafide. On the other hand, he pleaded that the landlord intends to sell the premises in dispute after its vacation. He alleged that many customers visited the demised premises with the intention to purchase it, but the deal could not be finalised and that the landlords have been compelling the tenant to vacate the premises. He further alleged that the landlord is a very rich person and is living in a posh bungalow with all modern amenities in a nearby village whereas the premises in dispute is an old construction which does not even have the basic amenities.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord has failed to prove his bonafide requirement. It was a case of mere desire and not of bonafide requirement. It was further contended that illness by itself is not a ground to seek ejectment. In support of his contention, he relied on Shri Rattan Chand Jain v. Shri Charan Singh, 1978(1) RCR 265 and Ram Lal Sunda and others v. Santosh Kumari Sood 1980(2) RCR 127. It was farther contended that according to the landlord, he suffered heart attack in January, 1979, whereas the present ejectment petition was filed on 7th August, 1982, that is, after 2-1/2 years and that being so, the requirement could not be held bonafide. It was further argued that the landlord is admittedly in occupation of a posh bungalow, just at a distance of 4-1/2 Kilometres from the city of Hoshiarpur where he has got all the modern amenities including a telephone. In these circumstances, the requirement to shift from that Bungalow to the present demised premises was not bonafide.