HAZARA SINGH KANDOHLA Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord-petitioner, who is a retired Armed Forces personnel, filed the ejectment application against the tenant Madan Lal, respondent, on February 1, 1982 seeking his ejectment from the ground floor except annexe and garage of house No. 78 Section 19-A, Chandigarh. According to the landlord, the premises were let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,250/- with effect from January 1, 1981. The tenant paid advance rent for one month, but did not pay the rent subsequently. The premises were let out for residence whereas the tenant was running a guest house therein. The ejectment was sought on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent, he had changed the user thereof and that the landlord required them for his own use and occupation. According to the landlord, he was in Air Force and had retired as a Wing Commander in the year 1975. Later on he started practice as an Advocate at Delhi where he met with a serious accident in December, 1979 and under went a major heart operation. He now wanted to shift to Chandigarh and to live in his own house with his family consisting of his wife, an unmarried daughter and an unmarried son. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 2.870/- per month, the rent had been paid up to October 31, 1981 whereas it was tendered on the first date of hearing for the period from November 1, 1981 to February 28, 1982. It was also pleaded that the premises were taken on rent for running a guest house and, thus, the question of change of user thereof did not arise. As regards, the bonafide requirement of the landlord to occupy the premises, the same was denied. According to the tenant, since retirement, the landlord was residing in Delhi with his entire family. He never resided in the house in question. Therefore, he had no intention to shift to Chandigarh. He only wanted increase in the rent to which he did not agree; hence the ejectment application was filed by him. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the rent was Rs. 2,870/- and not Rs. 3,250/- per month as claimed by the landlord. It was also found that the landlord had been paid rent up to October 31, 1981 and with effect from November 1, 1981 rent was tendered on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per month. On the simple deposition that he had decided to settle at Chandigarh was not sufficient when he was a practicing lawyer at Delhi. Accordingly, it was held that the landlord did not require the demised premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the evidence on the record, particularly the letter, mark A, dated November 1, 1981, it could not be concluded that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,870/- per month. According to the learned counsel, the whole conduct of the tenant speaks for itself. In the first instance, he summoned the daughter of the landlord in order to prove the two letters, marks A and B. Later on, for the reasons best known to him, she was given up. Then he moved an application before the Rent Controller for specimen signatures of the landlord which were given by him. When the landlord appeared in the witness-box, these two letters were put to him alleging that they were written by him. After the evidence was closed by both the parties, the tenant moved application dated February 24, 1983, whereby he wanted to summon the daughter of the landlord without naming her in order to prove the said two letters. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the reliance has been wrongly placed by the authorities below on the said two letter in coming to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 2,870/- per month. The learned counsel further contended that the requirement of the landlord was bonafide. He had no other house except the house, in dispute. After his retirement since he had met with an accident in the year 1979, the premises were let out, now, because of his ill-health and family circumstances, he wanted to shift to Chandigarh and to practice here. Thus, on the facts and circumstances so the case of his requirement was bonafide.