DURGI DEVI Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) ONE Mohan Lal owned two houses and a shop in the town of Sangrur. He died in 1973 leaving behind five sons and a widow Durgi Devi. All his sons except Bhagwan Dass were in service outside the town of Sangrur. Bhagwan Dass occupied one of the houses left behind by Mohan Lal, their father. The other house is the premises in dispute which was rented out by his widow Smt. Durgi Devi to the tenant Sat Pal on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. Om Parkash, one of the sons of Mohan Lal, was in service at Ferozapur. He died on 12th May, 1980, leaving behind three sons and a widow Smt. Bimla Devi. As a consequence of his death, his widow and two sons came back to Sangrur. Since there was no accommodation available there, Bhagwan Dass himself shifted to some other premises taken on rent. The present ejectment application was filed on 16th March, 1981, for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own occupation as well as for the occupation of the family of her deceased son Om Parkash. The plea taken by the tenant was that the family of the landlady had more than two houses at Sangrur; that she and her son resided in one of the houses; and that it was wrong that the family of Om Parkash wanted to shift to Sangrur. According to the tenant, it was a concected story; That two sons of Om Parkash were employed at Ferozepur and resided there permanently along with their mother and a younger brother; and, moreover, Om Parkash had constructed a big Kothi at Bhatinda and in case they wanted to shift from Ferozepur, they could shift to that house at Bhatinda. It was also pleaded that the landlady had no locus standi to file the ejectment application as the house had been rented out to him by her son Bhagwan Dass. However, the only issue framed in the case was whether the landlady required the premises for her own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller, after going through the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the landlady bonafide required the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation and that of the family of her deceased son Om Parkash. It was also observed that the necessity seemed to be genuine as the family had gone to the extent of vacating one house temporarily for the family of the deceased son, and taking another house on rent. This goes to show that the requirement was bonafide. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller, primarily on the ground that it was not the case of the landlady that the present accommodation in her occupation was insufficient or unsuitable for the family of the deceased Om Parkash, and, secondly, there was no cogent evidence to show why the family of Om Parkash wanted to shift to Sangrur. As a result thereof, the eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this petition here.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that taking into consideration all these facts and the subsequent events, the requirement of the landlady was bonafide and the view taken by the Appellate Authority was illegal, improper and misconceived. According to the counsel, the present accommodation in the occupation of the landlady and that of the family of deceased Om Parkash was insufficient, and in any case, the two sons having been married and the third son going to be married very soon, the requirement of the landlady was bonafide. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant/respondent, submitted that it was for the landlady to prove that the present accommodation in her occupation was insufficient. In any case, argued the learned counsel, during the pendency of this petition. Bhagwan Dass has also constructed a Kothi in Prem Basti, and that the landlady and the family of Bhagwan Dass had occupied that house in November, 1985, and there was necessity for Bhagwan Dass to keep the house bearing No. B-II, 32, Sangrur, alleged to have been vacated by him, for the family of his brother late Om Parkash. For this purpose, C.M. No. 2457-CII/1986 was filed in this Court on behalf of the tenant. Reply to the said application has been filed on affidavit by Dr. Baldev Krishan son of Smt. Durgi Devi, where it has been stated that no doubt, Bhagwan Dass has constructed one sitting room with a store and a kitchen and one bedroom and a kitchen, store, and one room on the first floor but the same are not yet complete and a lot of work remains to be done; moreover, even if the house is completed, it will have insufficient accommodation; that H.No. 3072, Mata Rani Street, which was vacated by Bhagwan Dass for the family of Late Om Parkash has got two small rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor, and presently the widow of Om Parkash,Parveen Goyal, his wife Mrs. Anchal and a small child of Parveen Goyal, along with his other brother Pardeep Goyal and his wife and a child are living there and that their third brother is Partosh Goyal who is a Junior Engineer and is of marriageable age and thus, the said accommodation was most insufficient for all these people.