PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. BAWA GURDAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has arisen out of an eviction order under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of a house situated at Jullundur. The order passed by the Rent Controller on Nov. 24, 1973, was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on March 4, 1975. The main point for determination is a legal one which has previously been considered in Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi, (1977) 1 Ren CJ 332 : (AIR 1977 Punj 158) (FB), a Full Bench decision of this Court.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case and the findings thereon may at first be given before looking at the legal issue involved. Two brothers Bawa Gurdas Ram and Bawa Sewa Dutt had purchased the house in dispute through a registered deed dated Aug. 10, 1942, from Bishan Dass. At that time Udham Singh who was practising as a lawyer at Jullundur was the tenant. Some time after the purchase Sewa Dutt went away to England and during his absence rent of the house continued to be received by Gurdas Ram as one of the landlords. Sewa Dutt in fact came back from England after an absence of about thirteen years and a few months before his return eviction application was presented to the Rent Controller in the month of May, 1971. Only two grounds of eviction taken in the application may be referred to. One of them was that the house had been let out to Udham Singh for a residential purpose and that after his death it began to be used by his heirs in connection with their business. Four sons, a widow and a daughter of Udham Singh were impleaded as respondents to the application. The other ground of eviction mentioned in para. 3 (e) of the application may be stated in the very words of the landlords. It reads as follows:-- "that petitioner No. 2 Bawa Sewa Dutt is in U. K. and is coming to India for finally setting down at Jullundur and he requires the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation bona fide. " Reply to this ground of eviction was given by the tenants by saying that Sewa Dutt was not coming back to India as he had finally settled in England. Furthermore, it was pleaded that he had many other properties in India and also in Jullundur which were so commodious that he could not utilise all of them. As about the change of the use, the tenants pleaded that Udham Singh had been using the house as office--cum--residence. The house was also alleged to be in use for a similar purpose. Paramjit Singh who is one of the tenants has in fact been found to be a property dealer and, according to him, as brought out in evidence he had some other place for business but for the sake of advertisement he had put up a notice board outside the house in dispute showing his profession.

(3.) ON the second ground of eviction the finding of the Appellate Authority is that Sewa Dutt came back to India in the month of Nov. 1971. He could only get one room and a servant quarter for his residence. This accommodation was held to be insufficient for his requirements. The application having been filed on behalf of Sewa Dutt before his return from England, whatever accommodation was obtained by him subsequently could hardly be taken into consideration. This fact could not at all be ignored that when he filed the application he being not in India did not have any place for residence at Jullundur. Sewa Dutt gave this statement at A. W. 7 on Feb. 6, 1973, that he has gone to England in the month of March, 1959. On his return from there he took up residence in a house belonging to his sister--in--law at Model Town, Jullundur, without the payment of any rent. His son was said to be still in England and he was thinking of coming back to India. It can thus not at all be doubted that the need of the petitioners at the time of the filing of the application was in fact bona fide and this is a material fact to be taken into consideration that subsequent to the filing of the application he had in fact come to Jullundur where he wanted to reside permanently.