JAGAT RAM Vs. MATHRA DASS & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated December 6, 1974, reversing the order of the Rent Controller.

(2.) Jagat Ram landlord, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the respondents from the house in dispute on a number of grounds including the one of personal necessity which only survives for the purposes of this petition. The case set up by him was that he had shifted to village Lakhowali, district Ganganagar, Rajasthan, where he had set up at Karyana shop 3.1/2 years back ; that he wanted to come back and settle at Malout Mandi where the house in dispute is situate as he was unable to fair well in the business at Lakhowali and also because there was no school beyond primary class for the education of his children in the said village. The claim of the petitioner was controverted by the respondent who pleaded that the landlord had no intention to settle at Malout Mandi and that the petition had been filed as he disagreed to increase the rent. The plea of the landlord found favour with the Rent Controller who consequently allowed the petition of the landlord vide judgment dated February 21, 1973. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and non-suited the landlord vide judgment dated December 6, 1974. Aggrieved by that judgment, the landlord has moved this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) The finding of the lower Appellate Court that the landlord had failed to substantiate the plea of the personal necessity is essentially a finding of fact but Mr. R.K. Chhibber, the learned counsel for the petitioner, sought to challenge the same on the ground that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority in the case was erroneous. The learned counsel further argued that the view of this Court consistently has been that the statement of the landlord that he needs the demised premises for his personal occupation has to be accepted unless the same is shown to be motivated and lacking in bonafide. There is no doubt that the view of this Court has been as canvassed by the learned counsel but the same does not hold the field after the decision of the Supreme Court in Phoroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel and others, 1974 AIR(SC) 1059 Before the Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, were under consideration which are parti materia with the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act. Interpreting the word 'requires' it was held by their Lordships that there must be an element of need and not mere desire before the landlord can be said to require the premises for his own use and occupation. Consequently, the mere wish or desire of the landlord howsoever well-intended it may be would not be sufficient to uphold the claim of the landlord unless he further establishes an element of need also. The facts of the present case when considered in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court would show that the landlord utterly failed to show the element of need for the occupation of the house in dispute. He shifted from Malout Mandi where the house is situated only 3.1/2 years back. It is admitted by him that he owns a shop at village Lakhowali where he is running the Karyana business. His ipso dixit that he is not fairing well in the business in that village cannot be accepted without any other proof regarding his business affairs, arguments that there is no proper arrangement for the education of his children at village Lakhowali has also no basis. A persual of his statement would show that his eldest son and two daughters left the studies when he shifted to village. Only his youngest daughter at the moment was studying in the first primary class. There is, therefore, no basis that the education facilities at village Lakhowali are not adequate for the education of his children. Moreover, on this aspect also, it is only the statement of the landlord and he has not cared to lead any other evidence to show that there is only a primary school in the said village. The mere statement of the landlord would not be sufficient to record a finding in this respect particularly when the landlord has not come to this Court with clean hands. The main ground urged by the landlord in the petition was of sub-letting but the story of subletting has been found to be unbelievable by both the Courts below and the rent note produced to substantiate that plea is a faked document. Again, the contention of the tenant that the proceedings for ejectment had been taken as he failed to agree to the increase in the rent also appears to be well-founded which is evident from the fact that he claimed to have let out the house to the alleged tenant Mathura Dass at the rate of Rs. 65 instead of Rs. 40 per menses admitted by the tenant to be the monthly rent. The landlord has, therefore, not only failed to show an element of need but also his move appears to be motivated and not bonafide.