SURINDER KUMAR Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal. House No. E-53 as shown in the site plan Exhibit A-5 belonged to Lachhman Dass. Both the petitioners and the respondents were tenant therein under Lachhman Dass. Lachhman Dass sold the entire house in dispute to the petitioners, Surinder Kumar and Smt. Jiwan Lata for a sum of Rs. 24,000/- vide sale-deed Exhibit A-1. The petitioners filed an ejectment application for eviction of their tenant Om Parkash on September 1, 1982 inter alia on the ground that they required the demised premises, which is a portion of the house, for their personal necessity. It was also pleaded that the entire house has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the tenant he pleaded that Lachhman Dass had agreed to sell the house in dispute to him vide agreement dated 12.11.1980 and that he had already filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of the agreement and for getting declaration that the sale-deed executed by Lachhman Dass in favour of the petitioners is null and void. He also denied the other allegations of the petitioners. It may be stated here that the said suit filed by the tenant had been dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal is stated to be pending before the District Judge, Jalandhar.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bonafide requirements of the landlords are amply proved on the record. The house which is said to be in occupation of the father of Surinder Kumar landlord is on rent with him and consists of one room only. They purchased the present building as they were already occupying a portion thereof as tenants which is in front of the house occupied by his father Ram Lubhaya. According to the learned counsel, the whole approach of the Appellate Authority was wrong, illegal and misconceived, whereas the learned Rent Controller rightly found that keeping in view the number of the family members the requirement of the landlords was most bonafide. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant submitted that both the grounds of bonafide requirement and the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation could not be pleaded simultaneously. According to the learned counsel if the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation the landlords should have sought ejectment of other tenants as well who are in occupation of other portions. Since no such application has been made against them the present application was not bonafide. Even the personal requirement of the landlords was not established. Thus argued the learned counsel the view taken by the Appellate Authority in this behalf should not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.