Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Prabhu Dayal vs Smt. Hardevi on 6 October, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)106PLR398
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant's civil revision directed against the orders of the Authorities below ordering ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity.
2. In brief, the facts are that Har Devi and her son, Madan Lal, (respondents herein) let out the premises to the petitioner. The demised premises consist of only one room. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent, nuisance to the neighbours, change of user and on the ground of personal necessity. The first three grounds, i.e. non-payment of rent, nuisance to the neighbours and change of user do not survive any longer. The Rent Controller, on finding that the respondents require the premises for their own use and occupation, ordered ejectment of the petitioner. On appeal, the order of the Rent Controller was affirmed. This is How, the tenant has come in" revision before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and the case requires to be remanded to the appellate. Authority for re-determination. According to him the tenant on 2.12.1988, made an application for taking notice of subsequent events like that during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate Authority, two rooms had fallen vacant and the respondents instead of occupying those rooms, let out the same to some other tenant. He also contended that another application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for production of additional evidence, was ordered to be heard along with the appeal, but at the time of deciding the appeal, the appellate Authority has not passed any order on that application. For this proposition, the counsel placed reliance upon a judgment reported as Jagir Kaur v. Nirmal Singh (1993-2) 104 P.L.R. 374.
4. In reply, Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the respondents, contended that application dated 2.12.1988 was decided and a detailed order was passed thereon. With regard to the second application, he stated that in case this case is remanded for decision on the application, it would result in delay. However, he has no objection if this Court decides that application.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. Respondent No. 1, Har Devi has two sons and two daughters. One of the sons is Madan Lal, who is respondent No. 2. Madan Lal has four sons and two daughters. It has come on record that only three rooms measuring 10' x 12' are in possession with the family of Har Devi and Madan Lal. Application dated 2.12.1988 was dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed only in order to delay the proceedings. I have gone through the said application and find that it is vague and lacks material particulars. In the application, it is not stated that when those rooms were vacated or when the other tenants came in possession of those rooms. No affidavit either of erstwhile tenant or of the new tenants, who according to the petitioner came in possession, was filed along with that application. I am thus of the view that the appellate Authority rightly dismissed that application. The other application which was filed for production of additional evidence is also of no consequence. In that application, petitioner made a prayer to produce two site-plans in order to show that some accommodation was available to the respondents apart from the one they had disclosed. These site-plans were attached with the application. One plan is of the year 1942 which was rejected by the Municipal authorities and the second one was prepared some where in the year 1989 i.e. during the pendency of the appeal. Both these site-plans cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that 1942 Plan was rejected by the Municipal authorities and is not an authenticated document. The other plan was prepared after the tenant was ordered to be ejected. Otherwise also, counsel for the petitioner has failed to show from the site-plans as to what additional accommodation was available to the tenant at the time of filing of the petition. The judgment rendered in Jagir Kaur's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case and is clearly distinguishable. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner for remand of the case cannot be accepted because it would be an exercise in futility if the case is remanded to the appellate Authority for deciding application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this view of the matter, the petition of the respondents was rightly allowed on the ground of personal necessity, which calls for no interference by this Court.
6. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.