KARTAR KAUR Vs. B.K. CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THREE landlords-Kartar Kaur and her son's Tejinderjit Singh and Raminderjit Singh filed the present ejectment application on 7th April, 1982, seeking ejectment of their tenant Shri B.K. Chhabra from the premises in dispute which consists of first floor of House No. 1474, in Sector 22-B, Chandigarh comprising of a set of two bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining, kitchen, bathroom, latrine and verandah on front and rear. The tenant was occupying the said premises since 1971. He was inducted by Budh Singh who was previous landlord of the building. Budh Singh sold the same in favour of the present landlords vide sale-deed dated 26th June, 1981, for a sum of Rs. 1,10,500/-. Consequently, the vendees became the landlords of the demised premises. The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground that they bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation, particularly for landlord petitioner No. 2-Tejinderit Singh who is presently residing along with his wife and two sons in the Barsati portion of House No. 2584, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, belonging to his father. That Barsati portion consists of only two very small rooms along with bath room and latrine but no kitchen. Moreover that portion was insufficient for his requirements. Further, he was residing therein at the sufferance of his father and not in his own right. As regards petitioner No. 3-Rajinderjit Singh, it was stated that at present he is posted as Manager, Punjab School Education Board Sales Depot, Patiala, who also visits Chandigarh almost on all week-ends as well on holidays and at present his family is living in the house of their father Harbans Singh. According to the landlords, they purchased the house for their status. In the written statement, the tenant admitted that he was occupying the first floor of the said building on a monthly rent of Rs. 180/-. However, he disputed the genuineness and bonafide requirement of Tejinder Singh, landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that "after scrutinising the entire evidence on the file, I am of the considered opinion that the demised premises are bonafide required by petitioner No. 2 for his own use and occupation." Consequently eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority has reversed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller and came to the conclusing that the need of Tejinderjit Singh, landlord for the demised premises did not appear to be genuine and bonafide. In view of that finding, eviction order was set aside. Aggrieved with the same, the landlords have filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners-Landlords contended that though at the time of the filing of the ejectment application it was the requirement of Tejinderjit Singh, landlord No. 2 for occupying the first floor of the house in dispute but at the same time now Raminderjit Singh one of the petitioners has been transferred during the pendency of this petition and has actually occupied the ground floor lying vacant, the necessity of Tejinderjit Singh to occupy the first floor, i.e. the demised premises is fully proved. Thus argued the learned counsel taking into consideration the subsequent events and also the fact that the tenant was allotted Government accommodation and the tenant was liable to ejectment. According to the learned counsel the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the requirement of Tejinderjit Singh was bonafide but the said finding has been reversed in appeal on surmises and conjectures and was thus not binding. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that the only issue was as to whether the requirement of Tejinderjit Singh was bonafide or not and that being the issue, the subsequent event are of no consequence and are to be ignored. According to the learned counsel if the landlords would have disclosed the factum of surrender of Government accommodation allotted to the tenant, the petition may not have been admitted. In any case, according to the findings of the Appellate Authority the requirement of landlord Tejinderjit Singh was not bonafide as at one stage the landlords were prepared to allow the tenant to occupy the ground floor but they wanted higher rent, i.e. Rs. 600/- per months as was being paid by the earlier tenant who vacated the said premises. Thus argued the learned counsel this conduct on the part of the landlords fully proves that the requirement of Tejinderjit Singh, landlord was not bonafide and they were interested only in increasing the rent.