Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs Hari Mittar Sharma And Ors. on 10 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)113PLR116
ORDER V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant's revision petition directed against the orders of the Authorities below whereby he has been ordered to be ejected from the house in dispute on the ground of personal necessity of the landlords.
2. One Sukhdev Singh who was the original owner of the house in dispute had filed petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act) for ejectment of tenant (petitioner herein) and Paramjit Singh from the house in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground that the house in dispute has been sub-let by Ranjit Singh to Paramjit Singh. During the pendency of ejectment petition, Sukhdev Singh sold the house in dispute to Hari Mittar Sharma, Advocate at Ludhiana and his wife, Nirmal Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the landlords). Landlords applied for substitution and vide order dated 7.12.1989 their application was allowed and they were directed to file the amended petition. In the amended petition apart from taking grounds taken by Sukhdev Singh, ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground of personal necessity. In the petition, it was averred by Hari Mittar Sharma, landlord, that he is practicing as an Advocate in District Courts, Ludhiana for the last 13-1/2 years and he and his family are residing in a house situated in Mohalla Vishkarma Nagar, Ludhiana owned by his father, which is not suitable and sufficient for the requirement of his residence and also for his office. In reply to the ejectment petition, tenant alleged that the need of the landlords is not bona-fide and the purchase of the house is sham and colourable transaction. Tenant took the plea that Bachan Singh father of Sukhdev Singh had filed an ejectment petition against him which was dismissed in the year 1977. Thereafter, Sukhdev Singh filed an ejectment petition on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity which failed, and after that Sukhdev Singh filed the present ejectment petition and during the pendency of the same the house has been purchased by the landlords in connivance with Sh. M.P. Vasudeva, counsel for Sukhdev Singh. Tenant thus, has stated that the petition is hit by provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure. On merits, he denied that he is in arrears of rent or has sublet the premises to Paramjit Singh or that the house in dispute is required by the landlords for their personal necessity. He also denied that the accommodation in their possession is unsuitable or insufficient. He rather stated that the need of the landlords is not bona-fide but faked and pretended one.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-
1. Whether the respondent No. 1 has sublet the property in dispute to respondent No. 2 without the consent of the petitioner ? OPA.
1-A. Whether applicants required the premises in dispute for their personal necessity ? OPA.
3. Relief.
Both the issues were decided against the tenant and accordingly, he was ordered to be ejected from the house in dispute. Against the order of the Rent Controller, an appeal was preferred in which finding with regard to sub-letting was reversed, while finding with regard to personal necessity was maintained. In this revision petition, finding with regard to personal necessity is being challenged by the tenant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions; (i) sale of the house in dispute in favour of landlords is sham transaction; (ii) petition filed by the landlords was not bona-fide as it was to their knowledge that a litigation was going on between the original owner and the tenant; and (iii) that during the pendency of appeal, father of Hari Mittar Sharma died and Hari Mittar Sharma who was earlier residing at the sufferance of his father came to occupy the house in his own right and though this subsequent event was brought to the notice of the appellate Authority but the petitioner was not given opportunity to amend his written statement.
4. There is no dispute that the sale in favour of the landlords was for consideration. The house was purchased by the landlords for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The sale amount was paid to Sukhdev Singh before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of sale-deed. It has come in the statement (Exhibit RW-4/x) of Kishan Lal who was examined in the previous proceedings by the tenant as his witness that Sukhdev Singh had quoted the price of the house to him at Rs. 1,50,000/- but he had offered to purchase it for Rs. 1,20,000/- in the event of vacant possession being given to him and in case of continuation of tenancy he offered the price of Rs. 80,000/-. In cross-examintaion he reiterated that he is prepared to purchase the house for Rs. 80,000/-. From this statement it stands proved that the price for which the house was purchased is not inadequate but represents the correct market price. In the ejectment petition itself, the reasons for purchase of the house have been given. It has been averred that "the petitioners have purchased the tenancy premises as the same is most suited to their needs. The tenancy premises is situated in posh colony of the town in Civil Lines at Dr. Hira Singh Road, Ludhiana and is very near to old courts and new courts." In this view of the matter, the first contention of counsel has to be rejected.
5. Coming to the second contention, it is relevant to note that under the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Rent Act, the landlord is entitled to get the demised premises vacated from the tenant in case of residential building when he establishes that the said residential building is required for his own occupation and he is not occupying any residential building in the urban area concerned and he has not vacated such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the said urban area. However, before an order of eviction is passed, the Rent Controller has to come to the conclusion that the need of the landlord to occupy the building is bona-fide, real or genuine. Various matters just like, whether the landlord intends to increase the rent; whether his relation with the tenant are good or bad; whether he is or not in possession of accommodation adequate for himself; or for the members of his family; whether any other building or a portion of it had fallen Vacant, and if so, what use he had made of the same; and whether he had let out any building or its portion during the pendency of eviction proceedings, or immediately before institution of the same, are some of the factors which can go a long way to influence the decision of the Rent Controller that the requirement of the premises for his occupation is or is not bona-fide. The genuine or bona-fide need of the landlords cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that they have purchased the property in occupation of a tenant. Hari Mitter Sharma is practicing as an Advocate in District Courts, Ludhiana, and as found by the appellate Authority has 13 years' standing. He has four children, out of which three are studying in English Medium School. The house in which he is staying is situated in an underdeveloped colony and is at a distance of 10 kms. from District Courts, Ludhiana. Both the Authorities below on the appreciation of evidence on record have found that the accommodation in possession of the landlords is very limited and highly insufficient for their living. It has also been found that accommodation is not only insufficient but also unsuitable for their requirement. Reference in this regard is made to the photographs placed on record and cross-examination of the tenant, it would be clear that in the house now in occupation of the landlords there is no provision of flush latrine, sewerage, municipal water supply, street-light, under-ground drains, pucca road etc. The house gets submerged to the extent of 2/3 ft. in water during rainy days by which coming from and going in the house becomes difficult. The Courts, and the school (where children of landlords are studying) are much closer to the house in dispute compared to the house in which the landlords along with their children are staying. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Authorities below that the landlords require the house in dispute for their own use and occupation and the accommodation presently in their occupation is not suitable for their requirement.
6. As regards the submission that the appellate Authority has not allowed the tenant to amend his written statement for incorporating subsequent events, I am of the view that no prejudice in this regard has been caused to the tenant. Under Section 13(3)(a)(i) clause (b) the landlord who seeks ejectment of the tenant for his personal requirement has to prove that he is not in occupation of any other such building within the urban area wherein the demised premises are situated. The landlord has to plead and prove this essential ingredient to be successful in obtaining the ejectment of the tenant. However, occupation of the landlord in the premises to disentitle him under the said provision has to be as a matter of right which can be enforced under the law. If the occupation is not as a matter of right and is only permissive or in other words, if he is merely a licensee then his mere residence in or actual possession of such a building, for howsoever long a period it may be, cannot be considered to be occupation within the contemplation of the aforesaid provision. His occupation should not be dependent on any other person's mere sweet will or sufferance, but has to be in his own right. Admittedly, at the time when petition was filed, Hari Mittar Sharma along with his family was staying in the house belonging to his father. On the death of his father, Hari Mittar Sharma alongwith his three sisters has become owner of the house and has only 1/4th share. Even if the whole accommodation in the house is made available, then also he can use it at the sufferance of his three sisters and not in his own right. Accordingly, there is no merit in the third contention as well.
7. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises provided he pays/deposits the entire arrears of rent within one month from today and also file an undertaking to the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlords on expiry of aforesaid period. Undertaking too shall be filed within one month from today.