J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE tenant Madan Mohan Talwar was inducted in a portion of the ground floor consisting of the three rooms, one deohri, one kitchen (bath room and latrine common) and on the first floor three small rooms marked in the red colour in the site plan attached to the ejectment application in house NO. E. C-1016, Mohalla Gobindgarh, Jalandhar City, at a monthly rent of Rs. 112/- including water charges and house tax payable in advance. His ejectment from the demised premises was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlord Roshan Singh bonafide required the premises for his use and occupation as he had retired from service and the Government quarter in his occupation at New Delhi had been got vacated by the Government of India. At present, he was in occupation of only one small room in the said building which was quite insufficient for him and his family consisting of his wife and four children, i.e. three sons and one daughter out of whom the daughter and the two sons were married and they were having children. It was also stated that he retired as a Gazetted Class II Officer from the Central Government and was not occupying any residential building in the urban area concerned, nor he had vacated any without sufficient cause. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that Shrimati Dhanti Devi, the mother of the applicant was the actual owner and the landlady of the demised premises. It was denied that the applicant required the premises for this personal use and occupation. According to him, a previous eviction application filed by her against Dwarka Dass, tenant was dismissed. The respondent had settled in Delhi for the last 20 or 25 years. Shrimati Dhanti Devi owned three houses in all including the house in dispute. The learned Rent Controller found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the applicant required the premises, in dispute, for his personal requirements bonafide. The learned Rent Controller also found that the applicant had not settled in Delhi permanently as alleged by the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus maintained the eviction order against the tenant. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the tenant moved an application for amendment of his written statement, on the allegations that during the pendency of the appeal Shrimati Dhanti Devi had died leaving behind three houses and, therefore, the accommodation in house No. 1025 A which was in her occupation had come to the landlord by succession. Reply to the said application was filed on behalf of the landlord wherein it was stated that the said house which was occupied by his mother, had fallen to the share of his brother Kamaljit Singh and the note to that effect had been given by the authorities concerned of the Municipal Corporation in its record. A photostat copy of the letter dated October 16, 1985, from the Municipal Corporation, Jullundur, was also appended to the said reply, in view of the said reply, the learned Appellate Authority found that no sufficient cause was made out for permitting the tenant to amend the written statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for amendment of the written statement should have been allowed by the Appellate Authority as on the death of Shrimati Dhanti Devi, the mother of landlord, during the pendency of the appeal, more accommodation had become available to him and that being so, a material fact could be brought on the record if the amendment sought for was allowed. According to the learned counsel, the refusal to allow the said amendment has prejudiced the tenant's case and, the therefore, the same should be allowed by this Court. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, 1981(2) RCR 401 : 1981(1) Rent Law Reporter 771. It was also contended that the mere entry in the municipal record did not make the said Kamaljit Singh the owner of the house which was occupied by his mother before her death unless any partition deed was produce in this behalf.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that his brother Kamaljit Singh was living abroad in Donmark and, therefore the entries made in the municipal record showing him to be the owner of the house have been rightly relied upon by the learned Appellate Authority. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on Jagan Nath v. Shrimati Shanti Devi, 1976 RCR 341; 1976 Curent Law Journal (Civil) 312.;