KARAM CHAND Vs. PREM SAGAR MARWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of the learned Appellate Authority affirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller ordering eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the suit premises. Landlord instituted eviction petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the pleadings that the petitioner was a tenant in the building owned by the respondent/landlord situated in M.C. Ward No. 2, Akhara Bazar Kullu, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. consisting of three rooms along with lobby, kitchen, bathroom toilet and verandah in the first floor of the building. He was in the arrears of rent @ Rs. 400/ - per month with effect from 16.7.2006 to 31.12.2006. He was entitled to the statutory increase and interest etc. The case of the landlord/respondent was that he is residing with his family in one set comprising of two rooms with his son and daughter -in -law. His son was married on 12.12.2006 and the suit premises were bonafide required for his son and daughter -in -law. He prayed that order of eviction be granted to him on these two grounds. A number of objections were taken resisting the petition inter alia that he was not in the arrears of rent, landlord was estopped from claiming eviction for bonafide for occupation of the property etc. One other ground was urged that the petition is barred by the principles of res judicata which was settled as issue No. 5.

(2.) ADVERTING to this issue, the learned Rent Controller holds that the previous eviction petition was decided vide order dated 19.6.2006, Ex.RW1/A and in this, there was no plea of subsequent arrears of rent. The requirement of bonafide was not that his son has in fact been married but was to be married. This petition being Rent Petition No. 2 of 2005, titled Sh. Prem Sugar Marwah v. Sh. Karam Chand in which it was held that the tenant was in arrears of rent. On the second issue, the learned Rent Controller holds that the landlord wanted possession of the premises as his son was to be married. The evidence on record was the statement of the landlord, who had stated his son was 24 years of age and he was trying to marry him whereupon he would require extra accommodation for his family. The Court holds that there was nothing on record to prove so as to whether the marriage actually had been fixed or not. These findings were upheld in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, who again reaffirmed that there was no evidence on record either about the date of the marriage of the son or institualization. I have considered this as the primary point as it was urged before me that what the learned Courts below held is not bonafides of the landlord/respondent but a mere whim. I am not persuaded to hold that it is the correct position. The learned Courts below on the evidence holds that the landlord has proved on record that the son had been married prior to the institution of the present petition. Ex.PW4/A was the certificate issued by the Registrar (Marriage), Municipal Council Kullu. This very finding was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority on reexamination and reconsideration of evidence on record.

(3.) DR . Lalit Sharam, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the landlord has not established (a) his bonafides and (b) the additional evidence on record clearly established the fact that the respondent/landlord was in possession of sufficient accommodation. All that I need say is that these points have been appreciated on the evidence on record by the learned Appellate Authority. In any event, RW2 Shri Gulbadan Singh and RW -3 Mohinder Singh as noticed above do not establish the conclusions either of sufficiency of the accommodation of the landlord/respondent or the fact that the landlord had vacated any premises which were/was sufficient for his needs, with the intention of defeating the rights of the petitioner/tenant. I also note that the learned Appellate Authority holds and rightly so that the allegation was that respondent/landlord was having four rooms set in Akhara Bazar, Kullu but no evidence was led before the learned Rent Controller. In these circumstances, I find no perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority. This revision petition, therefore, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.