SWANTANTAR KUMAR Vs. KAMAL DEV BAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord respondents sought eviction of the petitioner from the house in dispute on two grounds, namely, non payment of rent and personal bonafide need to occupy the premises. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 18.1.1986 returned findings against the landlords on both the grounds and the eviction application was dismissed. The learned Appellate Authority, however, vide judgment under revision recorded a finding to the effect that the rate of rent of the premises in dispute is Rs. 200/- per month as claimed by the landlords and not Rs. 50/- per month as contended by the tenant-petitioner on the basis of which the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing. However, the finding of the Rent Controller that the respondents have not been able to establish bonafide need to occupy the premises was maintained. The eviction was thus, ordered on the ground of short tender of rent made on the first date of hearing. This is how the tenant-petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

(2.) THE arguments in the case were partly heard on 15.12.1987, when the learned counsel for both the sides sought an adjournment stating that there is a likelihood of a compromise to be effected between the parties. An affidavit date 28.11.1987 of Wing Commander Kamal Dev Bawa, one of the respondents, has been filed, wherein he has stated that the petitioner has vacated the house in dispute and has shifted with his family to a new house No. M.C.H.B. 1/516 Mohalla Garhi, Bahadurpur, Hoshiapur, on the last Diwali, i.e. October 22, 1987, which house the petitioner has purchased. A reply to this affidavit has also been filed by the tenant-petitioner, wherein he has admitted the fact that he has purchased the said house but he has stated that it is in a dilapidated condition and can accommodate only some of his family members. He, thus, states that he has not completely shifted from the house in dispute. It appears that at some stage the talks of a compromise between the parties failed. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents, however, seriously contends that the respondents are in bonafide need of the premises in dispute and the finding recorded to the contrary by the authorities below cannot be sustained. He has further pointed out that there is no evidence on behalf of the petitioner to negative the fact that Wing Commander Kamal Dev Bawa is due to retire from service in the near future. Thus, the bonafide need of the said respondent is established. Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly conceded at the Bar that the bonafide need of the said respondent is established and the finding recorded by the Courts below on this point cannot be sustained. He has made this concession keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already purchased another house and shifted to the same with his family. I, therefore, reverse the finding of the learned Courts below on this point and hold that the respondents are in bonafide need of the premises in dispute to occupy the same.

(3.) HOWEVER , in view of the fact that the bonafide need of the respondents for personal occupation of the premises in dispute has been established, I maintain the order of eviction passed by the learned Appellate Authority against the petitioner and dismiss the present revision petitioner leaving the parties to bear their own costs.