ASHOK KUMAR Vs. INDIRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller but was dismissed in appeal. The premises in dispute bearing House No. 73 Mohalla No. 10, Jalandhar Cantt. consists of two rooms, Court-yard, kitchen and one chaubara as shown in the site plan Exhibit A. 2. This house was purchased by Ashok Kumar from one Ram Kishan on 15.4.1980 vide also deed Exhibit A. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 18, 500/- and thus he become the landlord qua the tenant Smt. Indira Devi who was inducted by the previous owner Ram Kishan An ejectment application as filed on 1st May, 1980. The landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant primarily on the ground that, he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. It was also pleaded that he has no other accommodation to live in and at present he was living with his father in house No. 2/5, Mohalla No. 3 Jalandhar Cantt. The site plan is Exhibit A. 3 and the accommodation with his father was too small and insufficient to accommodate him as well as the family of his father. It was also pleaded that Ashok Kumar, landlord, does not occupy or own any other building in the urban area of Jalandhar Canntt nor he had vacated any such building with or without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. It was also alleged by the landlord that they are four brothers besides mother and father. He has also one sister. Out of the four brothers, three are married and they have got their children as well. In the written statement, the tenant controverted the allegations made in the ejectment application. According to her the landlord is residing in his ancestral house as a matter of right and that the house was recently reconstructed and was quite commodious and sufficient for the needs of the landlord and that of all other members of the family of his father. On trial the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation and the present accommodation with his father was insufficient to meet his requirement. Accordingly eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the learned Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord has not been able to establish that he does not occupy or own any residential building in the property in dispute for his own use and occupation. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the ancestral house belongs to his father. The landlord is only occupying one room which was hardly sufficient to meet his requirements. It was further contended that he purchased the premises in dispute vide sale deed A 1 in order to live separately and comfortably from his father. Thus argued the learned counsel, the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily and whimsically and therefore, the same was vitiated.

(3.) APART from that, sufficiency or insufficiency of the present accommodation is one of the considerations to find out the bonafides of the landlord but that is not the only criteria. If the landlord has purchased the house to live separately as he did not want to live in the shared accommodation, he was entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant unless it was shown that his tenant unless it was shown that his requirement was not bonafide in any manner. There is no such suggestion or evidence as regards the present case. Even under the provision of Section 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act, the landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant for the residence of his son who is married, if the said son is not occupying in the urban concerned any other building for his residence and his said son has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act, in the urban areas concerned. If the landlord can seek ejectment of his tenant for the separate residence of his married son, then I see cannot any reason why the married son, being the landlord himself, could not be allowed to seek ejectment of his tenant for his separate residence. In this view of the matter the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs and the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant is restored. However, the tenant is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for three months is deposited with the Rent Controller within one month.