RAM SINGH Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Singh petitioner-landlord has come up to this Court in revision against the order of the District Judge, Amritsar, dated the 3rd of May, 1958 dismissing the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller whereby his petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises in dispute had been disallowed.

(2.) The petitioner claims to have purchased the house in question for a sum of Rs. 7,600/- from one Sant Singh on the 1st of October, 1956. The petitioner and his family have however been living in another house which was at one time owned by the petitioner's father he has averred that this other house had in February, 1950 been gifted by the petitioner's father in favour of the petitioner's mother. The petitioner has three school going and two infant children and his case, as made out in his application in support of his claim for ejectment is that he purchased the house in dispute in these proceedings for the purpose of his own use and that this is a good ground for getting the premises vacated by the tenant.

(3.) The defendant has resisted the claim on the principal ground that the petitioner is already in occupation of another house in the area of Amritsar and that he does not bona fide require the premises for his own use or for that of his family. It is not the tenant's case that the house in question is being sought to be vacated merely for the purpose of giving it at higher rent to others or for the purpose of realising from him higher rent. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the house, in which the petitioner is living has been in his possession for a number of years and therefore it must be considered that he is 'occupying another residential building in the urban area concerned' and is therefore not entitled to evict the tenant. The Rent Controller also observed that the gift deed, though registered, appeared to have been made at a time when the donor was heavily in debt and that the deed appeared to be collusive and colourable. On these findings the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the evidence on the record did not show that the petitioner or his family bona fide required the premises in dispute for their own residence. When the matter went in appeal to the learned District Judge, he also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner, being a resident in the house which belonged to his father and which had recently been gifted to his mother, should be considered to be in occupation of another residential accommodation. It may be noted that the learned District Judge did not affirm the observation of the Rent Controller that the gift appeared to be collusive; on the other hand, he appears to have been influenced mainly by the consideration that the petitioner's father and his mother both generally live at Hardwar and that the petitioner has been living in his parent's house since a very long time.