HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of ejectment passed by the Courts below on the ground that the rented land is required for bona fide use of the landlord and that the tenant has committed such acts causing material impairment to the value and utility of the building.
(2.) THE petitioner was inducted as a tenant on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 41.25 per month. It was alleged that the petitioner has carried out major additions and alterations by constructing tin shed, water tank, latrine and also constructed fresh wall upon the old wall without the permission of the landlord. It was also alleged that the petitioner has increased the width of main gate by demolishing the old gate etc. The ejectment of the petitioner was also sought on the ground that the land was let out for carrying out the business of coal and that the landlord requires the demised premises for his own personal use as his son Parveen Kumar wants to start business of stones because he is unemployed. It was pleaded that the landlord has not vacated any land after the year 1950 or that he has no other land for carrying out the business of stones. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the landlord is able to prove bona fide requirement of the rented land for his own use and consequently passed an order of ejectment. It has also been found that the petitioner has materially impaired the value and utility of the building.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that under Section 13(3)(b) of the Act, the landlord can seek ejectment if he requires the rented land for his own use. The requirement pleaded is the requirement of his son and, therefore, the order of ejectment could not have been passed by the authorities under the Act. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ravinder Kumar v. Gian Chand, 1986(2) Rent Control Reporter 333 and Shrimati Sukhnandan Kaur v. Ram Chand, 1989(1) Rent Control Reporter 396. It is also argued that the son, whose requirement has been pleaded has not been examined as a witness. It is Parveen Kumar alone who could depose that other property owned by the landlord is not suitable for the business of stones. 6. The judgment of Division Bench referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, in fact, specifically overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 582 (SC) : (2002)5 Supreme Court Cases 397. The said case examined the pari materia provisions contained in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It has been held therein to the following effect : "24. We are of the opinion that the expression 'for his own use' as occurring in Section 113)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be narrowly construed. The expression must be assigned a wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfil the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use..." ;