CHITTER KUMAR Vs. RATTAN LAL

LAWS(P&H)-1983-8-112

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Decided on August 12,1983

CHITTER KUMAR Appellant

VERSUS

RATTAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This judgment will dispose of two Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2272 and 2751 of 1980 as they have arisen out of the same order. Rattan Lal landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant Chittar Kumar from the house in dispute on the ground of personal necessity. The case set up was that the landlord retired from government service in the year 1972 and was residing in one room with his married son and his three children in Paharganj Delhi. As the accommodation was not sufficient for the occupation of six members of the family and also he was having ideological differences with his son, he wanted to shift to Gurgaon and to occupy the house in dispute. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority found that the accommodation with the tenant consisted of two portions and had been let out at two separate times. Accepting the need of the landlord, ejectment of the tenant from the first floor was ordered, which was held to be sufficient for his needs. Aggrieved by this order of the Rent Controller, both the parties went in appeal but the same was confirmed by the appellate authority vide judgment dated August 30, 1980. The tenant as well as the landlord still dissatisfied, have filed the above-noted two petitions. The finding of the authorities below though is basically a finding of fact but is based entirely on the ipse dixit of the landlord. Not only that, even the statement of Ram Bhagat (AW1) witness of the landlord, has been completely ignored who contradicted the landlord on vital points. The landlord deposed that he was living as a licensee in one room taken from his brother and that the business in Paharganj was run by his son and not by him. Ram Bhagat gave a complete lie to the stand of the landlord as he deposed that the latter was living in a house taken on rent at Rs. 15/- per month since the year 1947 and the shop was run by the landlord, though assisted by his son. The statement of the landlord thus stood contradicted on his own partners and on its basis no finding of bonafide need of the former could be recorded. Otherwise also, the circumstances are such that it is highly improbable that the landlord would shift and live at Gurgaon. When the application was filed, he was about 65 years of age and now he is about 70 years. It is difficult to accept that he would all alone shift to Gurgaon and live there in this old age where there would be nobody to look after him and that he would prefer a wholly vacant life and leave the business in which he has engaged himself after retirement from service. The finding recorded by the authorities below is therefore, wholly unwarranted and unjustified on the facts and circumstances proved on the record and the same is hereby dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, C.R. No. 2751/1980 is dismissed; C.R. No. 2272/1980 allowed and the impugned order reversed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.;

Click here to view full judgement.