MOHAN LAL Vs. JATINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition is whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) MOHAN Lal landlord sought ejectment of his tenant Jatinder Nath from bungalow No. 82, Lawrence Road, Dayanand Nagar Gali No. 3, Amritsar, inter alia on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. At present, the landlord was residing at Delhi in a rented house, that he was jobless and was not doing any business at Delhi for the last two years and he had no avocation of life there; that he has his relatives at Amritsar and he wants to shift to Amritsar where he has been assured financial assistance by his relatives in case he shifts to Amritsar. It was also pleaded that he was not having any other residential accommodation within the urban area of Amritsar; nor has he vacated any such premises. In the written statement the tenant controverted the said allegations and pleaded that the landlord was residing at Delhi for the last 20 years and had established his business there. Even his two daughters, one son and two sisters who were married were also residing at Delhi. Thus, the whole family of the landlord was residing at Delhi and he has also settled there permanently. Thus application for ejectment was not bonafide. It was filed only to enhance the rent by inducting some other tenant after getting him evicted. Earlier also, an application was filed by the landlord on 21.7.1976 for his ejectment which was dismissed as withdrawn. On trial, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that in the present case the landlord wants to shift to Amritsar to start his business. He wants to live bonafide in the present premises which is a residential building. Thus, it was held that the landlord has proved his case that he bonafide requires the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. As a result thereof, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller with the observation that the landlord had settled at Delhi where he is running business with his son. Therefore, in such circumstances, there does not seem to be any bonafide necessity for him to shift to Amritsar on some vague premises of his relatives. It was also observed that the landlord has not obtained any licence or permit for doing business at Amritsar. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, I find that the bonafides of the landlord are amply established on the record. It could not be disputed that the landlord was residing at Delhi in a rented house. He has categorically stated in his statement as AW-1 that "I had work brokerage for 10/15 days. The brokerage business was stopped by me because I could not carry out the same. Now I Had been running up to Assam side carrying some goods for sale there. I cannot make my both ends meet in that business. I am residing in a house taken on rent in Prem Nagar, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi at the rate of Rs. 45 p.m." Thus, the circumstances to shift from Delhi to Amritsar are fully explained. It is not for the authorities to go into the question, whether the landlord should shift to Amritsar or not. It is for the landlord to see whether it is beneficial to carry on business at Amritsar or Delhi where admittedly he is residing in a rented premises. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel respondent have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In any case, whether the requirement of the landlord is bonafide or not has to seen on the facts of each case. Consequently, the revision petition succeeds. The order of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the tenant-respondent is restored with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the three months period, vacant possession of the tenancy premises would be delivered and rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of each month. Revision allowed.