- (1.) Prem Chand respondent filed a application for ejectment of Om Parkash petitioner from one room apartment, a part of the house owned by the former, on the ground that he was living in a rented house with his wife and two children and paying Rs. 65/- per month as rent; that his total emoluments were Rs. 255/- per month and he was unable to pay the rent of Rs. 65/- month and that another room in his possession was in occupation of his mother and sister which accommodation was hardly sufficient for them. The petition was opposed by the tenant but the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority upheld the plea of the landlord and ordered ejectment of the petitioner, still dissatisfied, he has filed this petition under section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). The concurrent finding of the authorities below that the accommodation in possession of the respondent in the house owned by him is not sufficient and that he bonafide requires the accommodation in dispute for his own occupation has not been challenged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however, relying on a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Vidya Devi alias Bedo, 1980 1 RCR(Rent) 592 contended that the landlord being in possession of a house as tenant which is sufficient for his needs is not entitled to maintain the petition for ejectment of the petitioner, No such absolute rule of law is deducible from the said decision. What has been ruled in that decision is that no order of ejectment can be passed on the application of a landlord if he is in occupation of another residential building in the same urban area as a tenant without showing anything more. One of the exception to this rule as recognised in Messrs Sant Ram Des Raj v. Karam Chand, 1962 64 PunLR 758 can be, where the landlord seeks ejectment on the ground that the tenanted premises in his possession were insufficient for his needs. As to whether there can be any other exception it was observed, it is difficult to envisage hypothetically any other exception to the aforesaid provision and whenever suitable facts are brought out such a question may arise for consideration." It is, therefore, evident that no absolute rule was laid down and the landlord who was in possession of a tenanted premises was not debarred from seeking ejectment from the premises owned by him if a case is made out that he has a sufficient cause to vacate the premises on lease with him.
(2.) Now, coming to the facts of the present case, the house owned by the landlord consists of three rooms and the verandah. Two rooms out of the three rooms were on rent, one with the present petitioner and the other with another tenant and the landlord, his mother and sister were living in one room and the verandah. When the petitioner was married, he took up a separate residence in the premises now in his possession on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/- as it would not have been possible for him to live in the same room with his mother and sister, With the passage of time, the respondent got two children and his family now consists of four members. His total income being Rs. 225/- per month, he found it difficult to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 65/- after the birth of the two children. On these facts, there can be no two opinions that the landlord has sufficient cause to vacate the premises on lease with him and to get the two rooms of his house vacated for his personal occupation. All the ingredients of section 13 of the Act, therefore, stand fully satisfied and the authorities below rightly upheld the claim of the landlord, This petition consequently must fail and is hereby dismissed but without any order as costs. The petitioner is allowed one month from today to vacate the premises in dispute.;