LAWS(P&H)-1984-5-57

UPDESH RANI Vs. SWARANA DEVI

Decided On May 11, 1984
Updesh Rani Appellant
V/S
Swarana Devi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords petition whose application for evicting the tenants was allowed by the Rent Controller, but dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioners sought the ejectment of the respondents from the premises, indispute, inter alia on the ground that they bonafide require the same for their own use and occupation. It was stated that the demised premises were purchased by Pran Nath, the deceased husband of Updesh Rani, petitioner, on January 25, 1971. The eviction petition was filed on February 18, 1978. It was alleged therein that Durga Dass father of Pran Nath had one small ancestral house consisting of four rooms. After his death, his four sons including Pran Nath, inherited the aforesaid premises and that now the petitioners were in possession of one small room there. It was also stated that except the said room, they were in possession of no residential building situated in the urban area concerned, nor had they vacated any building after the coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. It was further averred that they did not own any building, nor were in possession of any other building except the room, as mentioned above. The accommodation in their possession was pleaded to be in sufficient to meet their requirements. In the written statement filed on the behalf of the tenants, these averments were not admitted. It was stated that the same were wrong. However, no specific plea was raised that the accommodation already in possession of the landlords were sufficient for their requirements. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlords were in bonafide need of the demised premises. As a result, the ejectment order was passed against the respondents. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said fining of the Rent Controller primarily on the grounds that it was not known how many rooms in all exactly were there in the premises, in dispute, occupied by the petitioners and what were their dimensions as no plan of the premises, in question, was produced by the petitioners and that when the petitioners a long with their predecessor-in-interest. Pran Nath had been residing in the very room in the demised premises for so many years, it could not be imagined that after the death of Pran Nath, that accommodation with them had become insufficient. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners have filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the entire evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Appellate Authority has misdirected itself and has acted arbitrarily and whimsically in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners did not require the premises bonafide. The landlady Updesh Reni, appeared as AW-2. She stated in her examination-in-chief that the present accommodation in their possession was insufficient as only one room was with them in the said ancestral house. No question was put to her in the cross-examination in this behalf. Swarana Devi, respondent, appeared as RW-5. She admitted in her cross-examination that Updesh Rani, landlady, had five children. In her statement she nowhere stated that the present accommodation in their possession was sufficient for their requirements. Neither in the written statement, the material allegations made in the ejectment application were specifically denied, nor in the evidence it was brought out that the present accommodation in possession of the petitioners was more than what was alleged in the ejectment application and then brought in evidence. Of course, it would have been better if the plan of the premises, in occupation of the petitioners would have been brought on the record, but on the fact and circumstances of the present case, it could not be said that the petitioners have failed to prove their bonafide requirement. It would be a question of fact that in each case to be determined on the evidence on the record as to whether the bonafide requirement of the landlord is proved by evidence or not. As stated earlier, in the present case, it is amply proved on the record that the petitioners bonafide required the premises for their use and occupation as the present accommodation in their possession was insufficient. There being no rebuttal to the evidence, the learned Rent Controller rightly passed the eviction order whereas the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding arbitrarily and whimsically.