BHAGWATI PARSHAD Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) The landlord Bhagwati Parshad is residing in rented premises which consists of one room. His family consists of his wife and four children who are of growing age and three of them are studying. Since he did not own any house he purchased the house in dispute vide sale deed Ex. A1 (dated 6th June, 1983) for a sum of Rs. 22,000/- for his comfortable living. He filed the present ejectment application on 8th September, 1984, seeking the ejectment of his tenant Parkash Chand, inter alia, on the grounds that he bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation; that at present he is occupying the rented premises for Rs. 150/- per month and the said accommodation is insufficient for his family of six members; moreover, the children are of growing age and he wants more accommodation. The petition was resisted by the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds that the sale deed was not a genuine document as it was only a fraudulent transaction brought about simply to seek his ejectment because earlier the previous landlord Om Prakash had filed three ejectment applications and had failed in all the three. Thus, according to the tenant the ejectment application was not a bona fide one. He also denied that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his personal use and occupation. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the disputed premises consisted of two rooms, one kitchen and a courtyard and the landlord is admittedly living at present in a rented premises consisting of one room and one kitchen only, and is paying an exorbitant rent, i.e., Rs. 150/- per month for the said premises while he himself is getting a sum of Rs. 50/- per month for a bigger premises from the tenant. It was, therefore, concluded that the landlord was quite justified in seeking the ejectment of his tenant and his need was bona fide. In view of this finding, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding on the ground that the landlord had failed to produce the plan of the rented premises which were in his occupation at present. In the absence of the plan it could not be said that the accommodation in his occupation was insufficient. According to the Appellate Authority even if the landlord was paying Rs. 150/,- per month as rent and he was getting only Rs. 50/- as rent from his tenant that cannot be a reason to hold that the requirement of the landlord was genuine or bona fide. In view of this finding the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord-has filed this petition in Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that non-filing of the plan of the premises occupied by the landlord was of no consequence. In any case, vide Civil Miscellaneous No. 3018-CII/1986 dated 9th June, 1986 he placed a copy of the plan on the record of this Court. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, the said accommodation was insufficient keeping in view the members of the family of the landlord and secondly he was paying higher rent for that and it was on that account that he purchased the house in dispute for a sum of Rs. 22,000/- for his comfortable living. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the Appellate Authority was wholly wrong, improper and misconceived whereas the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the premises.