Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's Revision against the decision of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, who has ordered the eviction of the tenant on two of the grounds out of those which were claimed for ejectment. These two grounds are that the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupiers of the neighbouring premises, and secondly that the premises in question were required by the respondent -landlord for his own use and occupation. It is relevant to mention here that the Rent Controller had however, found that the ground for the eviction of the petitioner were not substantiated and hence he dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the respondent landlord. This verdict was, however, upset by the Appellate Authority in appeal.
(2.) IT is not disputed that Narinjan Singh petitioner is occupying two room s and a third room on the back of the garrage of House No. 883/13, Sharifpura, Amritsar, which house is owned by the respondent. The two living rooms were taken on rent at Rs. 10/ - per month with effect from August 1, (sic) and the third room behind the garrage was taken at Rs. 5/ - per month with effect from October 15, (sic). Two separate Rent Notes were executed in this behalf and these are AW5/ and AW5/2. The petitioner is a Police Constable and his son is also now employed in the Police Force. It is also not disputed that one room in the house in question has been kept by the landlord for his use and occupation whenever he comes to Amritsar. Otherwise, he is residing at Village Bhalsaipur Purban in tehsil Amritsar. However, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent has two rooms in the ground floor and four rooms in the first floor at his disposal. As regards these rooms, the respondent clarified in his replication that the above allegation is wrong and, in fact, these room were rented out to Iqbal Singh, Sucha Singh and Kishan Chand, who are occupying the same. Further according to the respondent, he has nine daughters and though eight of them were married, he had to perform the marriage ceremony of the ninth daughter for which purpose also he needed the house in question. The various allegations and counter allegations in the pleadings of the parties resulted in the necessary issues being framed, but so far as this Court is concerned, as already noticed the parties have contested only the two grounds on which the petitioner's ejectment has been ordered by the Appellate Authority. Coming to the first ground of nuisance, the respondents produced three witnesses namely, Kishan Chand (AW2), Iqbal Singh AW3 and Sucha Singh (AW4) apart from making a deposition himself and all these witnesses have stated with one voice that the petitioner and his son used abusive language whenever the respondent went to use the bathroom This had necessitated the respondent to apply and get a separate water connection. The petitioner indeed produced some person from the neighbourhood to state that they had not heard of any quarrel between the parties, but this type of negative evidence has rightly been ignored in face of the testimony of three witnesses mentioned above who are living in the very premises itself and are therefore, natural witnesses to depose about this fact. Furthermore, the unreliability of the petitioner's witnesses is evidenced from the fact that in their zeal to support the case of the petitioner they made certain statement which went beyond the assertion of the petitioner himself. It is undisputed that the petitioner had rented the demised premises in the year (sic), but RW1 and RW3, the witnesses of the petitioner deposed that they had been seeing the petitioner living in these rooms for the last about twenty six years which is obviously wrong.
(3.) THE main bone of contention between the parties is the bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondent for his own use and occupation. In this behalf, there is no gainsaying that the respondent admitted having rented out some rooms to the three persons mentioned above, but that was quite sometime earlier. In fact, last time when a room was rented out was about fifteen months before the filing of the ejectment petition. As such it cannot be said that he had at his disposal some accommodation which he parted with, within a reasonable time prior to the filing of the ejectment petition. The circumstances in the life of a person can constantly change and the fact that the landlord rented out one room of the house to a tenant fifteen months prior to the ejectment application, would not deprive him of his right to seek ejectment of another tenant on the ground of personal necessity. If any authority on the point is required, the same would found in Kanihya Lal v. Manohar Lal, (1978) 80 P.L.R.D. 172 In the said authority, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court opined that the fact that the landlord had let out the premises two years earlier is not relevant for the purpose of assessing his bona fide needs at the time when he rented out the premises he might not be needing the accommodation. I am in agreement with this view.;