RAJKUMAR Vs. MOHINDER PAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1614, 1615, and 3624 of 1986, as the question involved is common in all the cases.

(2.) SITA Wati alias Sita Devi, widow, and Chunni Lal son of Mohan Lal were the owners previously of the building, in dispute, which consists of the shops and the residential portion. All the tenants were inducted by them as such. Avtar Singh and Vijay Kumar were the tenants on the two shops on the ground floor of the building separately, while Mohinder Pal Gupta was the tenant on the shop of the ground floor as well as on the first floor of the building which he was occupying for his residence. Petitioners Raj Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Sudhir Pal sons of Sher Chand and their mother Ram Devi, purchased the whole building vide sale deeds dated January 27, 1981 and February 9, 1981. Thus the relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between the parties from the date of the said sales. The petitioner filed the three separate ejectment applications dated November 12, 1981 seeking their ejectment inter alia on the ground that the whole building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. This was a common ground in all the three ejectment applications. In addition, in case of Avtar Singh, tenant, it was further pleaded that the shop was lying locked for eight months and was thus not being used by him. Therefore, he had failed to occupy the same without any reasonable cause for a period of more than four months. In the case of Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, the additional ground taken for eviction was that the landlords bonafide required the premises for their use and occupation. They were residing in the house which was insufficient for their requirement and belonged to the father of petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and the husband of petitioner No. 4. They had purchased the property, in dispute, with the object of living therein comfortably. separate from him. It was further asserted that the marriage of Raj Kumar, petitioner, was to take place. The house in their occupation had one store and four rooms one of which was a baithak. The father had three sons and three daughters along with his wife Ram Devi. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenants, the allegations made in the ejectment applications were denied. Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant further pleaded that the plea that the landlords wanted the premises for their personal necessity was an after-thought and fabricated story. The accommodation available with them was sufficient for their residence. The learned Rent Controller found in all the three ejectment applications separately that the landlords had failed to prove that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the case of Avtar Singh, tenant, it was further found that the landlords had failed to prove that the shop, in question had remained closed for a period of more than eight months without just and sufficient cause. In case of Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, the plea of personal necessity raised on behalf of the landlord was also negatived. Consequently, all the three ejectment applications were dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the orders rejecting the ejectment applications. It also held that the property, in possession of Mohinder Pal Gupta tenant was residential in nature. Dissatisfied with the same the landlords have filed Civil Revisions Petitions Nos. 1504, 1614 and 1615 of 1986, whereas Mohinder Pal Gupta, tenant, has also filed Civil Revisions Petition No. 3624 of 1986.

(3.) IN Civil Revision Petition No. 1615 of 1986 both the authorities below found that the shop, in dispute, never remained closed for more than four months without just and sufficient cause. This findings could also not be successfully assailed by the landlords. Consequently, Civil Revisions Petition No. 1615 of 1986 is also liable to be dismissed.