KISHAN LAL SACHDEVA Vs. SOM DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) KISHAN Lal landlord purchased the house in dispute in the year 1969 for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. He was already in occupation of one room and one kitchen on the first floor as tenant whereas the other portions were with three different tenants. He filed two ejectment applications against the tenants, one Kishan Lal and other Som Dutt. Kishan Lal vacated the portion in his occupation consisting of two rooms on the ground floor and a kitchen. Meanwhile Dharam Pal also vacated the portion on the first floor. Som Dutt tenant is in occupation of two rooms and a Dallan on the second floor. The ejectment petition was filed on 26.7.72, i.e. about 15 years ago. At that time, the landlord pleaded that he was two daughters one son and a wife and therefore, the accommodation in his occupation was insufficient. Now during the pendency of this petition for 15 years, he has got two sons more. At the present there are three school going children and two daughters out of whom, one has been married and the other is college going student. On these facts the landlord sought ejectment of his tenant on bonafide requirements. The tenant denied the said allegations and pleaded that the accommodation in his occupation was sufficient to meet his requirement. Learned Rent Controller found that the landlord has failed to prove his bonafide requirement of the premises in dispute and consequently, dismissed the ejectment application. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. What has weighed with the learned Appellate Authority was that Dharam Pal tenant vacated a portion on the first floor after the purchase of the house by Kishan Lal and even then he relet out the same and therefore, in these circumstances, his requirement cannot be said to be bonafide.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find that the original application was filed in the year 1972 when the landlord had only one son and two daughters. Out of the two daughters, one has been married and he had got two sons more during the pendency of this petition. The landlord filed two ejectment applications against both the tenants, i.e. Kishan Lal as well as against Som Dutt. Thus, his requirement even at that time was for the entire portion which was occupied by the tenants. Admittedly, the portion in occupation of the tenant Som Dutt is a portion of the building and that being so, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the tenant that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. As observed earlier, what weighed with the authorities below was that Dharam Pal was inducted after the purchase of the house which finding could not be sustained on the evidence on the record. The landlord, when appeared in the witness box, has categorically stated that Dharam Pal was already occupying a portion of the premises when he purchased the house in the year 1969. He was never cross-examined on this point. Mere placing reliance on the entries in the Municipal register that Dharm Pal was shown to be the tenant in the year 1971 cannot be conclusive to hold that he was inducted as tenant only in that year. Once that finding is held to be wrong, there is nothing to suggest that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide. The very fact that the premises in dispute is a portion of the building and the other portion is in occupation of the landlord, the requirement is bonafide because in view of the members of the family for his comfortable living he needs the portion which is now in occupation of the tenant Som Dutt. Besides that, the landlord requires the full ground floor as he does not want to share the same with the tenant on account of his strained relations and his grown up daughters. In these circumstances, the demand by the landlord could not be said to be unreasonable because it was not safe to share the accommodation with the strangers in view of his grown-up daughters as held by this Court in Tulsi Ram v. Tej Kaur and others, 1980(1) RLR 566 (1986 (Supp) RCR 93). Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the bonafide requirement of the landlord is amply proved on the record. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned orders are set aside and an eviction order is passed against the tenant.