RATTAN SINGH Vs. K. NAGRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord-petitioner, Dr. Rattan Singh, filed two separate ejectment applications on October 5, 1982, for ejecting the tenants from the demised premises solely on the ground that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. According to him, the house originally belonged to his wife who had purchased the same. She executed a will in his favour and, therefore, on her death, he became the owner as well as the landlord of the premises, in dispute, and thus, entitled to file the ejectment applications. He was a Medical Officer in the Punjab Agricultural University at Ludhiana from where he retired on July 31, 1982. At that time, he was occupying the premises in the University campus according to his status which were got vacated from him on November 6, 1982. According to the landlord, he had no other residential building in his occupation in the urban area concerned nor had he vacated any without any sufficient cause. He bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. He also pleaded that he wanted to start his clinic for medical practice. He had three sons of marriageable age. His married daughter their husbands, children and in laws are also to stay with him off and on. In the written statements filed on behalf of the tenants, the allegations made in the ejectment applications were controverted. They even denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was denied that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation as he had been granted permanent immigration to the U.S.A. in or about 1978-79. He had been to America three or four times to establish himself as well as his sons there. According to the tenants, the main aim of the landlord was to dispose of the property, in dispute, on a higher price by giving vacant possession to the prospective purchaser. He had been contacting various property dealers and had been writing letter to them showing his intention to dispose of the property as early as 1980. The learned Rent Controller dismissed both the ejectment applications on the finding that the landlord had failed to prove his bonafide requirement. Main reliance in this behalf was placed on the letter, Exhibit R.3, dated February 1, 1980 which was written by the landlord to a property dealer showing his intention to sell the house, in dispute. The said finding was affirmed by the Appellate Authority in appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the letter, Exhibit R.3, it could not be concluded that the landlord did not bonafide require the demised premises for his own use and occupation. According to the learned counsel, the landlord was to retire earlier in the year 1980, but he got extension in service for two years and, thus, retired therefrom on July 31, 1982. Even if it be assumed that he had a mind to dispose of the property in the year 1980 that did not mean that in the year, 1982, he did not require the premises for his own use and occupation; particularly when the premises in the University campus which he was occupying during his employment were got vacated from him, on November 6, 1982.

(3.) THE house, in dispute, is the only house owned by the landlord. After vacating the house in the University campus, he is without any house. Even if he goes to the U.S.A. to meet his sons off and on, it did not means that he does not require the premises for his own use and occupation. Admittedly, his daughters are living in India and have been visiting him. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. Even if vide letter, Exhibit R.3, he had a mind to sell the house, it did not mean that he could not change it later. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the applications were not bonafide in any manner. The landlord never asked for the enhancement of rent to the tenants. Rather vide letter, Exhibit R.4, dated March 31, 1979 written to the husband of the tenant, Mrs. K.Nagrath, the landlord intimated that he will require the house immediately after his retirement, and, therefore, the premises be vacated. Moreover, he had himself come in the witness-box as A.W. 2 and categorically stated:-