KAHAN CHAND Vs. SMT. VEENA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord Kahan Chand sought the ejectment of his tenant Dhanpat Rai who died during pendency of the litigation and his legal representatives were brought on the record. The ejectment application was filed on January 3, 1977. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlord bona fide required the premises, in dispute, for the residence of his married son Harnam Dass who was not occupying any other property in the urban area concerned in his own right, nor he had vacated any such property in the urban area concerned after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). The landlord has four sons, named, Thakur Dass, Harnam Dass, Narinder Kumar and Sham Sunder. Thakur Dass is a widower and is living separately in a house, site plan, Exhibit R. 1, consisting of two rooms and a tin shed. Harnam Dass has got his wife and three children whereas Narinder Kumar has got his wife and two children. Sham Sunder is a handicapped person. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant the stand taken was that there was sufficient accommodation with the landlord in the house which was in his occupation. It consisted of nine rooms. Moreover, the accommodation in the occupation of Thakur Dass who was living separately was much more for his needs and if both the accommodations were taken together, the landlord had no bona fide requirement for his married son. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. He required the demised premises for the accommodation of his married son Harnam Dass, as contemplated under Section 13(3)(a) (iv) of the Act. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord had got 12 members of his family in all and there are 12 rooms in his occupation, which, in its opinion, were quite sufficient for the accommodation of his family and for the necessity of his married son Harnam Dass. According to the appellate authority, Harnam Dass was married 20 years back and, therefore, the landlord could not seek ejectment of the tenant for the requirement of his married son as he was not recently married. The appellate authority was also of the opinion that the landlord had not mentioned the extent of the accommodation then in his occupation in the eviction application and he had nowhere pleaded that the accommodation in possession of his married son Harnam Dass was not sufficient. It also found that the house in occupation of Thakur Dass consisted of two rooms which could be got vacated from him and even to Harnam Dass for his separate residence. In view of these findings, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order was set aside. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the appellate authority in this behalf was wrong and misconceived. It was not for the appellate authority to suggest that the house occupied by Thakur Dass, site plan, Exhibit R. 1, should be got vacated from him and given to Harnam Dass. It is in evidence that Thakur Dass is living separately since long, though, he is a widower. There is no evidence on the record that Harnam Dass is occupying any separate accommodation in the urban area. It is not disputed that the landlord has got 12 members of the family and he requires the premises, in dispute, for his married son Harnam Dass who has got a wife and three children. His eldest son was 19 years old when the eviction application was filed in the year 1977. It is stated at the bar that the said son has also been married during the pendency of these proceedings. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence rightly came to the conclusion: