J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE tenant -Petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated May 2, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment has been maintained.
(2.) MOHAN Singh and others, landlord -Respondents, filed a petition for; the ejectment of tenant Nasib Chand in respect of rented land situated at Banga, which was rented to him at Rs. 10 per month. It was alleged that Harmit Singh, one of the landlords, had retired from Military service and had settled permanently in Banga. He intends to start his own business on the rented land in dispute and so it is required by him for his own use. He had no other such land, nor has he vacated any. This allegations of personal requirement was contested by the tenant and it was stated that the landlords only wanted to enhance the rent. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Petitioners require the premises in dispute bono fide for their use and occupation? POP. 2. Relief. The learned Rent Controller, relying upon ajudgment reported as Smt. Chandra Wati v. Narain Dass, 1970 R.C.R. 85, came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was observed that "Keeping all these circumstances in view I feel that the statement on oath of Harmit Singh that after retirement from service he is without work and wants to start his business in the premises in dispute should be given due weight and being a landlord be not deprived of the genuine bona fide use which he can derive by occupying the premises particularly when he does not own any other premises in Banga nor he had vacated the same after the commencement of this Act." In appeal this finding of the Rent Controller has been maintained. The learned Appellate Authority has observed that "I do not think it is necessary for a landlord to take all steps to start business before he moves for ejectment." It has been) further observed that "All that has to be seen is whether the intention is bona fide and in fact he wants to use the land for his own purposes." Feeling aggrieved against this concurrent finding, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court. The learned Counsel for the tenant vehemently argued that in the application for ejectment, the landlords did not disclose the nature of business which they intended to start on rented premises. He particularly referred to para 3(b) of the application which is to the following effect: That Shri Harmit Singh one of the Petitioners has since retired from service which he was hitherto doing and has settled permanently at Banga and he intends to start his own business or trade on the rented land in dispute itself to earn his livelihood, he requires it for his own use. The Petitioners are not occupying in the Urban prea of Banga for the purpose of their business any other such rented land nor they have vacated such rented land without, sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, in the Urban Area of Banga. For the first time the landlord Harmit Singh while appearing in the witness box as A.W. 1 seated that, he wants to set up a factory for manufacturing parts for defence services. In cross examination it has been stated by him that he had not applied for any licence nor had he performed any other formality in this respect. The learned Counsel for the tenant has contended that on this evidence alone, it could not be held that the requirement of the landlord was a a bona fide one. The approach of both the authorities below that it is for the landlord to judge his needs unless it could be shown that the application had been filed with some ulterior motive, is not the correct approach after the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel and Ors. : AIR 1974 S.C. 1059 and of this Court reported in Brij Lal v. Arjan Singh, 1979 (2) R.C.R. 275. According to the learned Counsel it is the duty of the Rent Controller to find whether the need of the landlord is bona fide one or not. For that purpose the landlord himself should take the Court into confidence and lead some evidence to show that necessary steps in the direction for running a particular business etc. have been taken. Keeping in view this principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Authority has misdirected himself in regard to the true meaning of the work "requires" occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. It was held by the Supreme Court in Mattulal v. Radhe Lal : 1974 R.C.R. 441 : 1974 (2) S.C.C. 365, as under: That mere assertion on the part of the landlord that he requires the non -residential accommodation in the occupation of the tenant for the purposes of starting or continuing his own business is not decisive. It is for the Court to determine the truth of the assertion and also whether it is bona fide. The test which has to be applied is an objective test and not a subjective one and merely because a landlord asserts that he wants the non -residential accommodation for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business, that would not be enough to establish that he requires it for that purpose and that his requirement is bona fide. The word required, signifies that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough but there should be an element of need, and the landlord must show the burden being upon him that he genuinely requires the nonresidential accommodation for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business. Following thisjudgment S.P. Goyal, J. in Brij Lal v. Arjan Singh (supra), set aside the concurrent finding of the authorities below and came to a Conclusion that "In the present case, apart from the bald averment in the petition that he wanted to use the rented land for the purpose of his own business and trade, nothing was said which could show that the landlord had the genuine need to start some business. In his statement also he never disclosed any fact or circumstances which could show that he had the genuine need to start some business or trade and the only fact which was disclosed, apart from the averment in the petition was that he wanted to start firewood stall on the demised premises. The landlord, as is evident from his statement, is an agriculturist by occupation and about 50 years of age. Nothing was stated by him in his statement as to why he wanted to leave his occupation and enter into the business of sale and purchase of firewood. His bald assertion in this respect, therefore, could not be accepted to hold that there was the genuine need on the part of the landlord for which he required the demised premises for his own use and occupation." Thus, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the judgments, referred to above, the landlord has failed to prove his bono fide requirement and the authorities below have mis -directed themselves in their approach.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord Respondents submitted that when the landlord is not doing any other business and the application is not proved to be mala fide, the requirement will be taken to be a bona fide one. According to the learned Counsel, the landlord need not to prove anything further in this respect. Moreover, no such question was put to the landlord while in the witness box as to the technical know how for the factory he wants to establish. Further he submitted that the story of the tenant that the landlords want to enhance the rent has been found to be false by both the authorities below arid therefore under these circumstances the application for ejectment has been rightly held to be a bona fide one. The learned Counsel also contended that whether the requirement is a bona fide one or not is a question of fact and there being concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below, the same cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.;