MANGAL SINGH Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) MANGAL Singh, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant, Union of India from H. No 43. Sector 5, Chandigarh constructed on a 4 Kanal Plot. The Union of India was inducted as a tenant in March, 1974, @ Rs 800/ - per month. The premises were let out for the purpose of office as well as for residence. The ejectment application was filed on 28th March, 1984, on the ground that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that he was 75 years old was not keeping good health, and, therefore, wanted to settle at Chandigarh to have treat -ment from the P G I , and, thus, wanted to shift from his village to this place ; that the tenant was requested to vacate the premises but the same was not acceded to ; that meanwhile he was residing with his friend in Sector 2 B, Chandigarh, and that he was not in the occupation of any other residential building in the urban area of Chandigarh nor had he vacated any such premises in that urban area after the enforcement of the Rent Restriction Act, without any sufficient cause. In the Written Statement, the tenant denied the allegations that the premises were required by the landlord for his personal use. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation bonafide, and consequently, eviction was ordered. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority has reversed the said finding and came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the landlord is only to the stage of wish and his desire, and no element of need is proved therein. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller had rightly come to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures. According to the learned Counsel, the Appellate Authority has misread the statement of Mangal Singh, landlord (AW -1). It was argued that the landlord while appearing in the witness box had brought the medical certificates with him but since no question was put to him in cross -examination, the same were not produced. Not only that, Rup Chand, Administrative Officer, appearing as RW -1 on behalf of the Union of India, nowhere stated that the landlord did not require the premises for his bonafide use ; rather, he admitted in cross examination that the landlord had been requesting them since 21st December, 1981, to vacate the premises as he required the same for his own use and occupation. He further admitted that since March, 1983, their office had already acquired land and was going to construct the building very soon and would shift as soon as the building was completed. He also admitted that it was correct that the rate of rent of the premises in dispute was Rs. 1800/ - per month from the very inception of the tenancy and the landlord never requested for its increase. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, from the evidence on record, it was amply proved that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation.