RAM LUBHAYA KAPUR Vs. PRAG NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition, whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below. The landlord Ram Lubhaya purchased the suit property from its earlier owner vide sale deed dated 24.3.1981, Exhibit A.1. The premises were let out to the tenant by the earlier owner at monthly rent of Rs. 18/-. The demised premises consists of one room and once verandah on the first floor. The ejectment application was filed on 1.10.1981, on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.5.1972 up to the date of filing of the application, that the landlord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation as the present accommodation in his occupation was insufficient in view of his family consisting of his four sons and one wife. At the time of the filing of the application, the age of the children was six years to 13 years. All these children were school going at that time. The accommodation in their occupation was only one room in the building of which the demised premises form a part. Thirdly, it was pleaded that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as two rooms have already fallen and the same being integrated part of the building, the whole building as such including tenants premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In the written statement, the tenant controverted the said pleas. It was stated that the tenant was not in arrears of rent as claimed. All the rent due, was paid to the previous landlord. Moreover, there was no assignment in favour of the landlord for recovering the rent prior to the sale deed. According to the tenant, the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide as the present accommodation was sufficient to meet his requirements. It was further pleaded that the building has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as alleged. Moreover, the demised premises are in good condition and the other portion of the building which is stated to have fallen, is small one and therefore, could not be said to be integrated part of the building. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant was not liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for the period prior to the purchase of disputed premises by the landlord. It was further found that the landlord has failed to prove that the accommodation at present in his occupation was insufficient for his needs. The learned Rent Controller also found that a part of the building is in dilapidated condition and, therefore, it could not be said to be unsafe and unfit for human habitation. With this, the ejectment application was dismissed . In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissatisfied with the same the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the present accommodation consisting of one room was not sufficient to accommodate his family consisting of four sons and one wife. According to the learned counsel, the findings of both the authorities below, in this behalf are wrong, illegal and misconceived. It was further contended that admittedly, the roofs of two rooms had fallen but inspite of that it has been held that the building has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. According to the learned counsel, the said fallen portion being integrated part of the whole buildings, the tenant was liable to be ejected on that ground even if the portion under occupation of the tenant was not unsafe and unfit for human habitation as such. The finding of the authorities below as to the arrears of rent was also challenged. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been found that the building is not in dilapidated condition, by both the authorities below, these findings should not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. It was further stated taht the present accommodation with the landlord was sufficient and in any case, he could easily be accommodated in the building occupied by his father.

(3.) APART from that the accommodation of the father could not be taken into consideration while deciding the bonafide requirements of the landlord. He is independent from his father and has purchased the property in his own name, vide sale deed Exhibit A.1, The present accommodation consisting of one room was most insufficient for the family of six people. Thus, the bonafide requirement of the landlord is amply proved on the record. The findings of the authorities below in this behalf are liable to be set aside as the whole approach of both the authorities below was wholly illegal and misconceived. Consequently this petition succeeds and the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and an eviction order is passed again the tenant with costs.