ACHHRA SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlord Achhra Singh sought the ejectment of his tenant Om Parkash Garg from the house in dispute which consists of three rooms on the ground floor and two Chobaras on the first floor. The premises were rented at the monthly rent of Rs.33/- besides the tenant was also to pay the house tax and property tax. The building is situated in Sirhindi Gate, Patiala. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the landlord required the premises for the residence of his son Harcharan Singh who is married and has also got children, as provided in Sec.13(2)(3)(iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. It was pleaded that at present the landlord along; with his family was living in House No.4258/1 which was insufficient to meet their requirements. His family consists of his wife, one married son Harcharan Singh, and two married daughters. Harcharan Singh's family consists of his wife, three children, two of them are school going. However, it has been further stated that a fourth child was born during the pendency of these proceedings. The ejectment application was filed on 15-6-1981. It was averred that his son Harcharan Singh is a Sectional Officer in Punjab P.W.D. B and R but is under suspension since 16-1-1979. His wife and children are living with the landlord in house No.4258/1. Even if Harcharan Singh is reinstated, his family plans to stay at Patiala for education of the children. The application was resisted on behalf of the tenant on the ground that the two daughters of Achhra Singh are married and that Harcharan Singh being posted out of Patiala is living at the station of his posting. It was denied that Harcharan Singh and his family are living at Patiala. It was also asserted that Harcharan Singh is independent from his father, being in service, and he does not depend upon the landlord. Moreover, he was married much earlier in the year 1969 whereas the ejectment application was filed in the year 1981. Plea was also taken that the landlord earlier also moved an application for his eviction on the ground of personal requirement and that of his married son but he failed up to the High Court. Thus the present application was barred on the principle of res judicata. According to the tenant he is being harassed since 1962 by moving various applications, one after the other, on different grounds. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord has failed to prove the ground of ejectment pleaded by him that he required the premises for the occupation of his married son Harcharan Singh. According to the learned Rent Controller, accommodation in House No.4258/1 is sufficient for the families of the landlord and that of his son Harcharan Singh. Consequently, his ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the whole approach of the authorities below is wrong, illegal and misconceived, it is nowhere the requirement of law that his married son should be independent and the marriage should have taken place recently in order to claim ejectment on that ground. According to the learned counsel, the authority relied upon by the appellate authority i.e. (1984) 1 Ren CJ 438 (Punj and Har), Kasturi Lal Sharma v. Kartar Singh is clearly distinguishable and has absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case. Any observations made therein to this effect are obiter dicta. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, in the earlier proceedings where eviction was sought on the ground of personal requirements of the landlord, an application was filed in the High Court in C.R. No.337 of 1979 decided on 23-2-1981 copy Ex.AW/A that the landlord be allowed to make necessary amendments and to plead that he also requires the premises for the occupation of his married son. This plea of the landlord was not accepted at that time and the revision petition was dismissed. However, it was made clear therein that any observations made therein will not be deemed to limit the right of the petitioner to file a fresh ejectment application on a new cause of action, if available, to him under law. Thus argued the learned counsel, earlier no finding was given as regards the requirement of the married son, and therefore, findings of the authorities below in this behalf, are wrong, illegal and based on surmises and conjectures.