RANJIT SINGH Vs. HARI MITTAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition directed against the orders of the Authorities below whereby he has been ordered to be ejected form the house in dispute on the ground of personal necessity of the landlords.

(2.) ONE Sukhdev Singh who was the original owner of the house in dispute had filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act) for ejectment of (tenant petitioner herein) and Paramjit Singh from the house in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground that the house in dispute has been sub-let by Ranjit Singh to Paramjit Singh. During the pendency of ejectment petition, Sukhdev Singh sold the house in dispute to Hari Mittar Sharma, Advocate at Ludhiana and his wife, Nirmal Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the landlords). Landlords applied for substitution and vide order dated 7.12.1989 their application was allowed and they were directed to file the amended petition. In the amended petition apart from taking grounds taken by Sukhdev Singh, ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground of personal necessity. In the petition, it was averred by Hari Mittar Sharma, landlord, that he is practicing as an Advocate in District Courts, Ludhiana for the last 13-1/2 years and he and his family are residing in a house situated in Mohalla Vishkarma Nagar, Ludhiana owned by his father, which is not suitable and sufficient for the requirement of his residence and also for his office. In reply to the ejectment petition, tenant alleged that the need of the landlords is not bona-fide and the purchase of the house is sham and colourable transaction. Tenant took the plea that Bachan Singh father of Sukhdev Singh had filed an ejectiment petition against him which was dismissed in the year 1977. Thereafter, Sukhdev Singh failed an ejectment petition on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity which failed, and after that Sukhdev Singh filed the present ejectment petition and during the pendency of the same the house has been purchased by the landlords in connivance with Sh. M.P. Vasudeva, counsel for Sukhdev Singh. Tenant thus, has stated that the petition is hit by provisions of Order 2 rule 2 and Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure. On merits, he denied that he is in arrears of rent or has sublet the premises to Paramjit Singh or that the house in dispute is required by the landlords for their personal necessity. He also denied that the accommodation in their possession is unsuitable or insufficient. He rather stated that the need of the landlords is not bona-fide but faked and pretended one.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions - (i) sale of the house in dispute in favour of landlords is sham transaction, (ii) petition filed by the landlords was not bona-fide as it was to their knowledge that a litigation was going on between the original owner and the tenant; and, (iii) that during the pendency of appeal, father of Hari Mittar Sharma died and Hari Mittar Sharma who was earlier residing at the sufferance of his father came to occupy the house in his own right and though this subsequent event was brought to the notice of the appellate Authority but the petitioner was not given opportunity to amend his written statement.