NARINDER SINGH Vs. KISHORE CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner-landlord filed this petition for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the house in dispute on the ground that the same was required for occupation of his married son, Onkar Singh. The Rent Controller accepted his plea and ordered ejectment of the respondent. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for ejectment. Aggrieved thereby the landlord has come up in this revision.

(2.) The landlord in support of his claim stated that the house in which he was residing at village Bhajoli consists of only two rooms and was insufficient for his family consisting of three sons, tow daughters-in-law, three grand-children, himself and his brother. These facts were not disputed before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on two grounds, namely that the married son for whose residence the premises in dispute were required did not appear in the witness-box and that he being an employee at a Tubewell at Dadumajra, a village towards Chandigarh, was not likely to adopt residence at Kharar which would be further far off from his place of employment by about 3-1/2 miles. None of these grounds was sufficient to reverse the finding of the Rent Controller. Non-examination of the son was of no consequence because the landlord had categorically deposed that he wanted his son to be separated and shifted to the house in dispute at Kharar. The reason for doing so was the insufficient accommodation and inability of women folk to pull on together. In these circumstances the statement of the son was not required to corroborate the stand of the father. His non-appearance in the witness-box, therefore, was of no consequence. The other ground was equally insignificant as the accommodation available at village Bhajoli with the landlord was definitely insufficient and too meagre to accommodate eleven members of his family particularly the two married sons. It was, therefore, essential for some members of the family to shift to some other accommodation. It being not easy to get accommodation in and around Chandigarh, there was no improbability in shifting to Kharar by one of the married sons. Moreover, Kharar is not that far away and is very well connected by frequent bus service. Even it would not be difficult for a person to cover the distance of 4/5 miles on bicycle to reach his place of posting. In these circumstances it could not be reasonably inferred that there was no likelihood of the son to shift to Kharar as his place of work would become farther off by 3-1/2 miles. The Appellate Authority thus reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on wholly insufficient grounds and its judgment is accordingly set aside.

(3.) In the result, this petition is allowed and the order of ejectment restored. The tenant shall, however, be allowed to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession by the end of June, 1985 provided he deposits arrears of rent, if any, together with rent upto the end of June, 1985 by April 30, 1985 in the Court of the Rent Controller.