N. C. KOCHHAR J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9. 3. 84 passed by the learned A. D. J. No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Suit No. 267/80, decreeing the suit for eviction and for recovery of rent filed by the respondent Jai Prakash Goyal against the appellants M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and its Divisional Manager. The case set-up by the respondent in his plaint was as under :- That the respondent is the owner of house bearing No. 5-J-8, Jahawar Nagar, Jaipur and while he was posted out of Jaipur, he had let-out the said house on a monthly rent of Rs. 850/- to the appellant No. 1 for a period of 2 years w. ei. 10. 6. 1978 and the rent-note was executed on behalf of the appellant No. 1 by its District Sales Manager Shri S. S. Sodhi on 15. 9. 1978. The appellant-tenant had also to pay the electricity and water charges besides the above said monthly rent. After the respondent was transferred to Jaipur, he approached the appellant-Corporation with a request to vacate the house in dispute, but the appellant- Corporation refused to vacate it before the expiry of the period of two years for which the house had been let-out by respondent, but the respondent was assured that the house would be vacated after the expiry of the above said period of 2 years. On 9. 6. 1980, the respondent approached the appellant-Corporation with a request that his house be vacated, but the appellant-Corporation was not prepared to do so. The family of the respondent consists of the respondent, his wife and 3 grown-up children and all of his children were studying and each one of them needed a separate room. Since after his transfer to Jaipur, the respondent had been living in a rented house in which the accommodation available was not sufficient for him and the house in dispute was bonafide required by the respondent for personal use, and, in case, the order of eviction was not passed in favour of the respondent, he would suffer greater hardship than the one which would be suffered by the appellant-Corporation in case the order of eviction was passed. The appellant had also not paid rent for the month of August, 1980 and was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 850/- on that account to the respondent.
(2.) WITH these allegations, the respondent sought a decree for eviction in respect of the house in dispute in his favour and against the appellants besides the decree for recovery of the above said amount of Rs. 850/- with costs of the suit and for damages at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month till the possession of the house in dispute is delivered by the appellants to the respondent. The suit was contested by the appellants, who admitted the tenancy as also the rate of the rent but denied that the house in dispute was required bonafide by the respondent for his personal use. The appellants also denied that any rent was due and stated that besides paying the rent for the month of August, 1980, the appellants had also paid rent for the months subsequent thereto. It was also pleaded in written-statement that earlier the house in dispute had been let-out by the respondent to one Shri Bhalla at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month and the standard rent of the house in dispute was Rs. 500/- per month and should be fixed at that rate. After framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court held that the house in dispute was required bonafide by the respondent and that the respondent would suffer greater hardship if the decree for eviction was not passed against the appellants than the hardship which would be suffered by the appellants in case the decree was passed. It also held that the appellants had failed to prove that the house was earlier let-out at the rate of Rs. 500/- p. m. and the standard rent of the house in dispute was Rs. 500/- p. m. The learned trial Court further found that the rent for the month of August, 1980 had not been paid. Consequently, the decree for recovery of possession of the house in dispute and for recovery of Rs. 850/- with costs was passed against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. It was also held that the respondent was entitled to receive the rent at the above said rate of Rs. 850/- p. m. till the appellants delivered the possession of the house in dispute to the respondent but the appellants were entitled to adjust the amount already paid towards the rent. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed on 9. 3. 84 by the learned trial Court, the appellants have filed this appeal in this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. Shri R. C. Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the finding of the learned trial Court that the house in dispute is required bonafide by the respondent for his personal use. He has contended that the accommodation already available with the respondent in the house in his occupation is sufficient and, as such, there is no reason for him to ask for eviction of the appellants from the house in dispute. He has further contended that the only reason why the respondent filed the petition for eviction was because he wanted the appellants to increase the rent of the house in dispute but the appellants had refused to do so, and, as such, his claim cannot be said to be bonafide. In support of this argument, he has relied on letter Ex. A-1 admittedly written by the respondent to the District Manager of the appellant-Corporation. The case set-up by the respondent in his pleadings and as also in his evidence that he had let-out the house in dispute to the appellants at the time when he was posted out of Jaipur has not been denied either before the learned trial Court or before this Court. The respondent's statement that except the house in dispute he owns no other house has also not been controverted and finding of the learned trial Court in this regard has not been challenged before me. It is the admitted case of the parties that since after his transfer to Jaipur in December, 1978, the respondent has been living as a tenant in the back portion of a bunglow situated in Bapu Nagar where he has in his possession three rooms, one kitchen, one W. C. and a bath-room. The case of the respondent that his family consists of himself, his wife and three grown-up children is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that since December, 1978, the respondent has been residing in Jaipur along with all members of the family. It is also not disputed that the respondent had been working in the U. I. T. where he was holding a high position firstly, as Secretary at Beawar and thereafter as O. S. D. and Secretary at Jaipur. Taking into consideration the status of the respondent his claim that he needs one drawing room, one bed-room for self and wife and one bed-room each for his three children besides one guest-room cannot be said to be unreasonable. The accommodation available in the house in dispute is of five rooms, two stores, two kitchens, two bath-rooms, one garrage, a front lawn and open space in the back. This accommodation is in accordance with the requirement of the respondent. Every house owner has a desire and a right to live in his own house and this right has been recognised under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, as well. His claim made for eviction of the tenant cannot be denied by the Court unless there is something to show that his claim is not bonafide or has been made with oblique motive. Even if the accommodation available in the tenanted premises is the same as in the house owned by the land owner, the claim of the house owner to live in his own house cannot be denied except when it is found that the same is not bonafide. Much stress has been laid on tetter Ex. A-1 in which the respondent had written to the District Manager of the appellant-Corporation that the house should be vacated by the end of August, 1979 failing which he would be charging monthly house rent at the rate of Rs. 1100/ -. The plea that the respondent had filed the suit for eviction as his demand for increase of rent had not been agreed to by the appellants was raised in the written statement filed by the respondent. The respondent filed replication thereto after obtaining the permission of the Court to controvert this plea and pleaded that although the house in dispute had been let-out for a period of two years, because of his transfer to Jaipur he had approached the appellant-Corporation and had met its Manager Shri Sodhi with a request to vacate the house as it was required by him for occupation for himself and his family, but Shri Sodhi had told him that in case he made the demand in writing with a stipulation that the rent should be increased, he would make recommendation to his Head-office for vacating the house on the ground that the higher rent asked for was not reasonable. While appearing as PW-1, the respondent has corroborated this case and has stated that he had written this letter in the office of the appellant-Corporation and had handed it over to Shri Sodhi and Shri Sodhi had assured him that he would forward the same to the Head-office with the above said recommendation. Shri Sodhi, while appearing as DW-2, denied the fact that the respondent had approached him with a request to vacate the house in dispute but has stated that the respondent had approached him with a request to increase the rent and when the respondent gave him this request in writing in the form of Ex. A-1, he forwarded the same to his Head-office. If the letter forwarding Ex. A-1 to the Head- office, written by Shri Sodhi had been produced in Court it would have been an evidence to show which version given in the Court was correct. What in fact was written by Shri Sodhi to his Head- office was within his special knowledge and of the appellants who are in possession of the letter written by Shri Sodhi forwarding letter Ex. A-l. The above said letter written by Shri Sodhi to the Head-office having not been produced, in view of Clause (f) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act an adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellants, that if the said letter had been produced it would have been unfavourable to them. The fact that the letter does not bear any date and was written in hand on an ordinary half paper supports the case of the petitioner that it was written and handed over in the office to Shri Sodhi. In the earlier part of this letter the respondent had requested that his house be vacated as he needed if for his own residence because of his transfer to Jaipur. It appears that the later portion of the letter asking for increase in rent, in case the house was not vacated by the end of August, 1979, was written by the respondent at the instance of Shri Sodhi and on his giving the respondent the above said assurance. In these circumstances, letter Ex. A-1 cannot be said to be a piece of evidence to show that the claim of eviction made by the respondent was not bonafide. The above said contentions of Shri Kasliwal, therefore, is without any force and I have no hesitation in rejecting them.
(3.) NO other point has been raised before me. This appeal is without any merit and is dismissed with costs. .;