SURINDER KAUR Vs. UJAGGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord Ujagar Singh sought the ejectment of his tenants Surinder Kaur and her husband Harbhajan Singh from the house in dispute No. WH55 consisting of 2 rooms, one small improvised Kitchen, latrine and bath room with a compound built on a 4-Marlas plot which is on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- with the tenants. It was stated in the ejectment application that the landlord was residing in Africa with his family and was not in need of the premises in dispute, so he rented out same to the tenant in the year 1966. Now he has permanently shifted to Jullundur City with his wife and wishes to live in his own house. At present he is living in a rented house and he has no other house in Jullundur City nor he has vacated such house in Jullundur City after the passing of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act without any reasonable cause. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenants it was stated that the landlord was settled in Africa with his family, but there after he shifted and settled in United Kingdom. It is totally wrong that the landlord requires the premises for his personal use and occupation. It was further pleaded that it is wrong that the landlord was living in a rented house or that he has not vacated any such premises without sufficient cause. According to the tenants the landlord is not an Indian citizen. He is actually British national and has come to India temporarily on a British passport. The sole object of the plaintiff to file the present petition is to sell the property or to increase its rent. The application is malafide one and the same has not been filed in good faith. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord it was reiterated that the landlord has permanently shifted to India. At present he is living in a rented house which is not sufficient for his requirements and which is only taken on rent with a clear understanding that the same shall be vacated immediately on vacation of the house is dispute. On trial the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord requirement is bonafide and the mere fact that he is a British citizen does not disentile him to get the house vacated. It was also found that at present he was living in a rented house belonging to one Hari Singh who has appeared as AW2. He has stated that the landlord was in possession of 2 rooms out of his house along one Kitchen and bathroom and he had given this portion temporarily and now he intends to get the same vacated. In view of this finding, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. It has been observed by the appellate authority that "lastly, Mr. Gautam tried to contend that the landlord had no intention to settle in India permanently. In fact, he wants to sell these premises and fetch a higher price. Even this contention of Mr. Gautam cannot be accepted as he has himself admitted that in the last five years, the landlord and gone to U.K. 2 or 3 times. The amount of money, which the landlord might have spent in coming and going, would have been much more than the price which he would have fetched after selling the tenanted premises by getting the same vacated. Consequently, I am of the opinion that even this contention appears to be without merit." Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants have filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the requirement of the landlord was not at all bonafide and the finding of the authorities below in this behalf was wrong and improper. According to the learned counsel, the landlord is British citizen. He retired in the year 1964 and did not come to India and rather settled in United Kingdom. His six sons are settled in England and the landlord had come to India on return ticket. He is getting pension there and there is no evidence showing any compelling circumstance as to why he wants to leave England and settle in India. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, earlier his wife Pritam Kaur got another house which is adjacement to the house in dispute, vacated from her tenants and instead of occupying the same, she sold away the house to the tenants themselves on a higher price and thus similarly the landlord wants to sell away the present house also after obtaining the eviction order on a higher price. Moreover, argued the learned counsel the landlord being a foreign citizen has been permitted to remain in the State of Punjab for six months only and after the expiry of said period, he will have to leave India and go back to England. Argument was also raised that the landlord filed an ejectment application earlier which was got dismissed as withdrawn though the earlier order allowing the application to withdraw with the permission to file a fresh application was set aside by the High Court. It was also contended that the landlord was at present occupying the tenanted premises which has not been shown to be insufficient for his purposes and therefore, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ramesh Kumar v. Atma Devi and others 1985 PLR 751, the landlord was not entitled to evict his tenants. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found that his requirement is bonafide and it being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in this petition. Moreover argued the learned counsel the landlord is prepared to give an undertaking in this Court that in case he fails to occupy the premises for any reason during his life time, the tenants will be entitled to claim its ownership in that eventuality. According to the learned counsel, the landlord is keen to settle in India in his last days.