MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlords Sewa Ram and Baldev Ran (both brothers) sought ejectment of their tenant Des Raj from the premises in dispute i.e. the residential building situated in Jullundur which was on monthly rent of Rs. 40/- with him. The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground that Sewa Ram landlord required the promises in dispute for the sue of his married son B.M. Sethi, who was previously employed in Central Bank India, Chandigarh and was now transferred to Jullundur 25.8.1980. It was further pleaded that B.M. Sethi does not own any other residential building in the urban area concerned and has not vacated any such property at Jullundur after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the written statement, the tenant asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Sewa Ram. He also controverted the allegations of landlords and pleaded that B.M. Sethi does not require the premises for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that both the petitioners are the landlords whereas Des Raj is the tenant under them. It was further found that B.M. Sathi is the son of Sewa Ram landlord and he requires the premises in dispute bonafide for his married son as provided under section 13(3)(iv) of the Act. Consequently, eviction order was passed vide order dated 18.81982. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller relying on the judgment of this Court in Kasturi Lal Sharma v. Kartar Singh, 1984(1) RCR 211. According to the lower appellate authority since B.M. Sethi is living separately for 12/13 years prior to the filing of present ejectment application and is not dependent on Sewa Ram landlord, the landlord was not entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant that ground i.e. for the residence of his married son. In view of that finding, eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the lower appellate authority was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived and the judgment relied on in Kasturi Lal's case (supra) was clearly distinguishable and has no applicability to the facts of the present case. It was further contended that under section 13 of the Act, the ejectment could be sought by the landlord if he wanted to occupy his own premises as provided under section 13(3)(a) whereas the landlord is also entitled to get the building vacated for the residence of his married son under 13(3)(iv). Thus argued the learned counsel, both the grounds are independent and are available separately to the landlord to seek ejectment of his tenant. In support of his contention, he referred to Shri Nand Kishore v. shri Jagdish Chander Jain, 1986(1) RCR 250, 1985 PLR 215.