JASBIR SINGH,J - (1.) PETITIONER -landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, 'the Act') for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from a portion of the house, description of which was given in that application. Ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and the demised premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was case of the petitioner that he was landlord of the demised premises in occupation of the respondent. He had got the said property from his father through a Will, to which no objection had been raised by his sister, who is the legal hair. It has further been said that he was going to retire on March 31, 1999, after attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, he intended to settle at Fazilka, where his near and dear relations were residing. He owns agricultural land near to the said place. It was stated by him that the respondent is liable to be ejected for non-payment of rent, on account of his personal necessity and also that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
(2.) IN reply to the said application, all the allegations levelled by the petitioner were controverted. It was pleaded that the ground of personal necessity put forward by the petitioner was non-existent and imaginary. Rent was tendered on the first date of hearing and on account of that the said issue had become redundant. Prayer was made for dismissal of the application for ejectment. The Rent Controller, on appraisal of evidence, came to a conclusion that the ground of personal necessity of the petitioner was made out from the record and on that count, ejectment of the respondent was ordered. Respondent went in appeal, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated April 5, 2004. Hence this revision petition. The Appellate Authority, while reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court, has opined that the petitioner had failed to prove that this ground of personal necessity, to occupy the demised premises, was genuine. To say so, it has been observed that in his application, the petitioner has not specifically stated that he was not in occupation of any other residential building and had not vacated such building, without sufficient cause, after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area. It has been held that as the petitioner had failed to prove the said fact, so he was not entitled to get the respondent ejected from the demised premises.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed. It is apparent from the records that in his application for ejectment, the petitioner has specifically stated that he was landlord of the demised premises and he needed the same for his own use and occupation. The Appellate Authority below has failed to negative the findings given by the Rent Controller in that regard. The relevant portion of the judgment, passed by the Rent Controller, reads thus : "14. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner and to prove this issue, he himself stepped into witness box as PW-2 and also examined the Draftsman as PW-1. 15. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner is the owner and respondent is the tenant over the property in dispute, meaning thereby the relationship of the landlord and the tenant is not under dispute. Now question arises whether the petitioner has any personal necessity to get the demised premises vacated from the tenant ? Admittedly, the petitioner was a Central Govt. employee and was serving as Sub Station Master Railways. Admittedly, he was serving at Kurali at the time of filing of this petition. Admittedly, his date of retirement was 31.3.99. Admittedly 2 years service of the petitioner has been extended by the Central Govt. by a special notification. It is admitted by the respondent in his cross-examination that another portion has been sold by the petitioner to Chander Kanta vide sale deed dated 4.9.1995 mark-C. He also admitted that one plot has been sold by the petitioner to Bhushan Lal vide sale deed dated 8.7.1993. It is also admitted by the respondent that petitioner has a wife, three sons and one daughter. He also admitted that one of his son is handicapped. It is also admitted by the respondent witness RW-1 that only one room is in possession of the petitioner out of the total property. Baldev Raj in his examination-in-chief specifically stated that except the property in dispute he owns no other property nor he got any property vacated since 1947. In his petition, he specifically stated that except the property in dispute he owned no other property at Fazilka nor he owned any property at Kurali, where he is presently residing. In the circumstances when the petitioner has been retired from his service in the year 31.3.2001, which is an admitted fact, he needs his own house. 16. Now question of his bona fide is to be decided first. Since the petitioner owns no other house at Fazilka except the property in dispute. He wants to settle down at Fazilka after his retirement alongwith his other family members, his needs seem to be bona fide. The arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that he has not mentioned all the ingredients as per Section 13(3)(a) sub-section (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, so he is not entitled to get the premises vacated is considered and find myself unable to agree with him. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1980-II RCR 108 clearly held that even if landlord fails to prove all the ingredients required under Section 13(3)(a)(i) but leads evidence to that effect, non-pleading of ingredients is not fatal to warrant dismissal of the application for ejectment. In the present case, the petitioner specifically led evidence on these fact. The petitioner has specifically mentioned in Para No. 6 of his petition that he has the portion in his possession is insufficient portion, which is shown green in colour in the site plan and he owns no other property at Kurali and he has given the detailed reasons for getting the property vacated. He has specifically stated in his evidence as well as mentioned in his pleadings that there were two houses previously and through a will, his father has given the property in dispute to the petitioner and the other house to his mother through a registered will, which is on the file as Mark-A. His mother died intestate and the house which was owned by his mother was divided between he and his sister Raj Kumari. Raj Kumari admittedly settled at Canada and she intends to sell that house. Since that property was impartible, that house has been sold as such to one Chander Kanta. This fact has been admitted by RW1. RW1 in his cross-examination specifically stated that house consists of one drawing room, one room, one verandah and Chubara in the upper side and that house could not be partitioned. Since nature of that property was such that it could not be partitioned into two parts, petitioner under compulsion sold that property including the part of his share through a registered sale deed dt. 4.9.95 mark C. The sale deed is a registered document and is admissible in evidence as such, as per the law laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court in 1996-1 Punjab Law Reporter 579 and by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in 1999 (Supplement) CCC 217 and by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in 2001-III RCR(Civil) (sic), where it has already been held by the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court that under Section 65(1) of the Registration Act, the registered copy of the sale deed are admissible in view of the provisions of Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act and Section 57 clause V of the Registration Act, 1958. Since the certified copies of the sale deed are admissible in evidence, so the sale deeds mark A, B and C placed on file are admissible in evidence and can be read into evidence, though these documents have been marked as A, B and C. ;