Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh vs Bhupinder Singh (Deceased) And Ors. on 18 May, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR195
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant's revision petition.
2. The ejectment of the tenants was sought by the landlord or the grounds, that the tenant has failed to pay the arrears of Rent w.e.f. March, 1982 onwards, as well as house-tax w.e.f 1st of March, 1977; that the landlord requires the tenanted premises for his personal use and occupation as well as for occupation of his family members; that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months, that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises.
3. The tenant in his written statement denied the allegations as made in the ejectment petition. The requirement of the premises for the personal use and occupation of the landlord and his family members also not accepted. The tenant rather stated that the landlord is in government service and posted at Bhatinda and is residing there with his family, and therefore, the ground of personal necessity has been set up only in order to get the house vacated.
4. The Rent Controller on the appreciation of evidence on the record ordered the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity as well as on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. The orders of the Authorities below are now being impugned in this revision petition.
4. Mr. H. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Ram v. Mathura Dass, 1. 1990 H. R. R. 294. contended that the finding of the Authorities below with regard to the tenant having ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months, cannot be sustained the landlord has failed to allege and prove that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises upto the date of filing of the ejectment petition Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Ram's case (supra) the order of ejectment on this ground is not sustainable. In this view of the matter, finding of the Authorities below is liable to be set aside
5. Mr. Sarin brought to my notice that landlord died during the pendency of the revision petition and therefore, the ground of personal necessity is not available to the legal representatives of the landlord. He further contended that the personal requirement of the landlord has come to an end with his death. I am afraid to accept this con- tention of the learned counsel for the respondent. The landlord in his petition not only claimed that he requires the premises for his personal use and occupation, but also stated that the same were required for the members of his family, which consists of himself, his wife three sons, out of which, two are married and having their respective family, and an unmarried daughter. In his statement before the Court as AW-the landlord categorically slated that because of his bad health, he sought pre-mature retirement and therefore, wanted to settle at Nabha alongwith his family members. At Bhatinda, the landlord was staying with his family members in a rented house and was paying a rent of Rs. 350/- per month, whereas he was getting only a rent of Rs. 160/- from his tenant. This part of the statement also finds support from the statement of A.W. 3-Darshan Singh, his landlord at Bhatinda, who in his statement deposed that the landlord alongwith his family members was residing in his premises as tenant and was paying a rent of Rs. 350/- per month. Counsel for the tenant- petitioner has failed to point out anything from the record which would show that the requirement of the family has ceased to exist after the death of the landlord.
6. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is allowed three month's time to vacate the premises provided he pays/deposits the entire arrears of rent within one month from today.