LAJWATI Vs. SUKH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.

(2.) RAM Piari was the original landlady and the owner of house No. 1462. vide sale deed October 26, 1982, she sold that said house in favour of Lajwanti, the petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 22,500/-. It consisted of three rooms out of which two rooms are under the tenancy of Sukh Lal, tenant, at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- besides taxes etc. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that she required the said premises bonafide for her use and occupation as her family consisted of four adult members besides the married daughter and her children who kept on visiting and staying with her frequently. It was also alleged that the premises in her occupation were insufficient for her use and occupation. Moreover, the premises with her husband were on rent on a monthly rent of Rs/ 150/-. She did not own or occupy any other residential building in the urban area concerned, nor she had vacated any such building after the commencement of the Rent law. In the written statement, the tenant controverted the said allegations and pleaded that Lajwanti was not the owner, nor the landlady. He was a tenant on the said premises under Ram Piari. He further pleaded that house No. 1462 consisted of three rooms with verandah. One Sher Singh who was a tenant in one of the rooms and verandah had vacated the same and they were lying vacant for the last one year. He denied that the requirement of the landlady was bonafide as she had got other house also. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlady, it was admitted that the possession of one vacant room was handed over to her by the previous owner at the time of the sale and that said room was in her possession and her family members since then. On trial, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion, -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the evidence on the record, it was amply proved that the requirement of the landlady was bonafide as at present, she was living with her husband is occupying the rented premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- whereas she is only getting Rs. 10/- per month as rent from the demised premises. The learned counsel further contended that in any case, the said house was in occupation of her husband as a tenant and she has there at sufferance and, therefore, she could not be said to be in occupation of the rented premises in her own right. In support on the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Narain Dass Sood v. Smt. Vidya Wati, 1979(1) Rent Control Reporter 547. The learned counsel also argued that in Karnail SIngh v. Vidya Devi, 1980(1) Rent Control Reporter 592, which was subsequently approved by the Full Bench of this Court in Romesh Kumar v. Atma Devi 1985 (2) Rent Control Journal 566, it was nowhere held that under no circumstances, the landlord will be entitled to eject the tenant if he was in occupation of the rented premises. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was wrong, illegal and improper. Reliance in this behalf was placed by the learned counsel on Om Parkash v. Prem Chand Aggarawal, 1980(2) Rent Control Journal 739; 1981 (1) RCR 96. Moreover, according to the learned counsel in view of the subsequent event because of the death of her son-in-law the requirement of the landlady to occupy the premises has further increased.