RAM NIWAS Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.9.1986 of the learned Appellate Authority under Section 15(5) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) RAM Niwas landlord-petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of Prem Chand tenant-respondent on ground that he is the landlord of the portion of house No. 452, Block No. XV, situated in Old Anaj Mandi near the DAV High School, Hissar, and the respondent is a tenant under him at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. He pleaded that he purchased the aforesaid house vide sale deed dated 4.11.1980 Ex. A-1 and let out the demised premises to the respondent on 20-5-1983. He sought eviction of the respondent on two grounds, namely, that he is residing in one room in the house belonging to his mother as a licensee at her mercy, and that he has a large family consisting of himself, his wife and three grown up school-going children. He, therefore, requires the demised premises bonafide for his own occupation and that the respondent has started doing business of tailoring in the house which he had taken for his residential purpose and thus he has changed the user of the same without his permission. None of these grounds prevailed with the learned Rent Controller and as such the ejectment application of the petitioner was dismissed. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge exercising the power of the Appellate Authority under the Act maintained the order of the Rent Controller vide judgment under revision.

(3.) HOWEVER , as regards the bonafide personal necessity of the petitioner, I find that the authorities below have seriously erred in reaching at their conclusion. The petitioner candidly stated in his application that he along with his wife and three children was living in one room in the house owned by his mother. This averment was not denied by the respondent in his written reply. All that he stated was that the petitioner is a big landlord. It has no doubt been brought on the record that the parents of the petitioner as also his two brothers are residing at Chandigarh where his father and brothers are carrying on business. His mother owns the house, one room of which is in occupation of the petitioner. His father owns another house at Talaqi Gate, Hissar, which has two shops on the ground floor. The first floor of this house is lying vacant. But this evidence does not prove that the petitioner owns the house at Talaqi Gate or he has any share in the same. It could not, therefore, be concluded that the petitioner is occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Hissar or has vacated such a building without sufficient case after the commencement of the Act or Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949. The learned authorities below have failed to appreciate that had the vacant house of the father of the petitioner situated at Talaqi Gate been available to the petitioner, he would not have been living with his wife and three children in one room in the house owned by his mother. I, therefore, have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner requires the demised premises for his own use and for the residence of his wife and children.