Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.L. Chopra vs Arun Aggarwal on 19 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003 A I H C 642, 2003 HRR 39, (2002) 3 PUN LR 642, (2002) 2 RENCR 628, (2003) 1 RENTLR 33
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J.
1. This is revision filed by the tenant (P.L. Chopra) against the order of Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dated 23.1.2002 setting aside that of Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 29.8.2000 whereby the Rent Controller had dismissed the respondent landlord's (Arun Aggarwal) petition for ejectment filed by him under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act).
2. Arun Aggarwal landlord filed application for ejectment against P.L. Chopra tenant under Section 13 of the Act whereby he sought his ejectment from the entire top floor of House No. 46, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh. It was alleged by him that he is the owner/landlord of this house. He purchased this house by registered sale deed dated 6.2.1997. At the time when he purchased this house, it was in possession of number of tenants named S.P. Chauhan, R.D. Sharma, K.K. Sharma, V.P. Malhotra, Sheela Rani, Sat Pal and P.L. Chopra. He got possession of one room from Sat Pal in the execution of ejectment order which had been obtained by his predecessor in title against him (Sat Pal). After the purchase of the house, he requested all the tenants to vacate the house as it is required by him for his own use and occupation. Shri S.P. Chauhan readily obliged him and vacated two rooms and kitchen on the ground floor, other tenants however, prevaricated and did not vacate. Some of the tenants promised that they would vacate by the end of April, 1998. He did not file ejectment applications against them in the hope that they would vacate by the end of April, 1998 and if they failed to vacate, he would file ejectment applications against them after April, 1998. As far as P.L. Chopra is concerned he is tenant on the entire top floor at a rental of Rs. 250/- p.m. He is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1997. Landlord's family consists of himself his wife two children Akhil son aged 6 years studying in class 1, Kunal son aged 3 years. At present he is residing with his father in a rented accommodation on the first floor of House No. 3347, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. The said accommodation consists of 3 rooms, kitchen, latrine, bath front and back verandah glazed. Along with his family, his father and mother are also residing. His one brother Gulshan Kumar who is also married, shifted from the said rented accommodation to another rented accommodation in Sector 32 because he was feeling scarcity of accommodation. It is alleged that with the accommodation in house No. 3347, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh with him where his father is also residing he is feeling paucity of accommodation for himself and the members of his family. In House No. 3347, there is no separate room for his children, House No. 48. Sector 21-A is built on 10 marla plot upto 2-1/2 storey. Ground floor consists of 4 rooms, kitchen, latrine and bath. Similar accommodation is there on the first floor. Top floor consists of 2 rooms, latrine, bath and one temporary store and one kitchen has been built by the tenant. At the moment, he (landlord) is in possession of 2 rooms, kitchen on the ground floor vacated by Shri S.P. Chauhan and one room on the first floor vacated by Shri Sat Pal in execution filed against him. The present accommodation in his possession is neither suitable nor sufficient and he is unable to shift to the said accommodation. Also the said accommodation is not in compact form.
3. Tenant P.L. Chopra contested this application urging that landlord has got sufficient accommodation with him. At present the complete first floor, 2 rooms on ground floor are lying vacant. He will feel sufficiency of accommodation if he occupies first floor, two rooms on the ground floor. He does not need any more accommodation. As far as he (tenant) is concerned, he is occupying barasti portion only. Barasti portion is segregated from the rest of two floors and cannot be occupied by him (Arun Aggarwal). It is manipulation on his part that he needs barasti portion for guests. He is presently residing with his father in the house owned by him where the accommodation in his possession is quite suitable and sufficient.
4. Vide order dated 29.8.2000, Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application. Landlord's appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.1.2002. Hence this revision by the tenant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has gone completely off the track while holding that the top floor of the house is needed by the landlord for his own use and occupation. It is submitted that the family of the landlord is very brief which consists of he himself, his wife, two small children in the age group of 6 years and 3 years. He can very well occupy the entire first floor, two rooms and kitchen on the ground floor of this house. It is submitted that this house is built on a10 marla plot upto 2-1/2 storey. Ground floor consists of 4 rooms, kitchen, latrine, bath. There is similar accommodation on the first floor, it is submitted that the entire first floor is at his disposal while 2 rooms and kitchen on the ground floor are also at his disposal. He is not to spread himself and reach the sky. It is submitted that it might be true that the landlord is the sole arbiter of his own choice and neither the Rent Controller nor the tenant can interfere with this choice of the landlord, but it is equally true that the Rent Controller has to see whether the need put forth by the landlord is bona fide or is a design with some oblique motive viz oust the tenant. It is submitted that it is the duty of the rent control authorities to determine whether the need putforth by the landlord is bonafide. For determining whethertheneed putforth by the landlord is bonafide, rent control authorities have to look to the composition and size of his family, his needs and the accommodation presently available to him. If the rent control authorities feel that the accommodation available to him is adequate in view of the composition and size of him family, the rent control authorities will not order the ejectment of the tenant. In support of this submission, he seeks support from Krishna Johar v. Prem Singh, (2000-3)130 P.L.R. 285 where the family of the landlord consisted of appellant Krishna Johar, Umesh Johar, wife of Umesh Johar and three children who are now aged 16, 20 and 8 years. Even if one separate room is given to all the three children and two rooms to the petitioner, then the total accommodation required by them comes out to be 5 rooms whereas they are in possession of 8 rooms. It has also come in evidence that both the married daughters of Krishna Johar reside at Chandigarh and Panchkula respectively. In these circumstances, prima facie, there is no necessity for occupying the room in possession of the tenant."
6. In my opinion, the need purforth by Arun Aggarwal for the top floor of the house which is in occupation of P.L. Chopra is quite bona fide. Arun Aggarwal landlord has stated that his family consists of himself, his wife and 2 children, his father and mother. At present, they are residing in rented accommodation on the first floor of house No. 3347, Sector 21-D which consists of 3 rooms, kitchen, store, back verandah glazed. Previously, his elder brother was also residing with them. As he felt paucity of accommodation, he shifted to some other accommodation rented by him. He will be using the first floor of this house, his parents will be using the second floor and the top floor will be used by guests as his two married sisters frequently visit them and stay at night with them. In my opinion, why should the bonafides of Arun Aggarwal be doubted? He has purchased this house which was in occupation of so many tenants. He got possession from some of the tenants. He requested other tenants also to vacate the accommodation in their occupation. Other tenants did not oblige him. Only Shri S.P. Chauhan obliged him and vacated 2 rooms and kitchen on the ground floor. In Indian society, sisters, brother and other relations do visit and some times stay for a number of days together. One has to provide accommodation for their stay. It may not be unbelievable that his sisters also visit him and he has to think of providing them accommodation for their stay on their visits to them.
7. In Kempajah v. Lingajah and Ors., 2001(8) S.C.C. 718, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it may have been a wish or desire of the appellant landlord to occupy the leased premises but he failed to prove the reasonable bona fide requirement as contemplated under Section 21(i)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Controller Act, 1981. Word "require" implies more than a mere wish or impulse or desire on the part of the landlord. Element of need may be present both in "require" and "desire" but distinction lies in the intensity of the need. "Require" includes the concept of "must have" which "desire" does not. "Reasonable" and "bona fide requirements" are complementary and supplementary to each other.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the building belonging to the landlord is in possession of several tenants, he cannot file multiple ejectment applications against them. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Molar Mal (dead) through LRs v. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd., A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1261. Why cannot landlord be up in arms against a number of tenants if each of them is occupying one bit or other of the building belonging to him if he needs the entire unit for his own use and occupation? Instead of opening up front against all of them simultaneously, he can open up front against some now and against others afterwards, i.e., may be after getting possession from the tenants whose ejectment he had sought earlier and successfully. In this case, the appellate authority has ordered that the landlord's need is bona fide. Appreciation of the landlord's requirement by the Appellate Authority is based on reasonable consideration of evidence. In revision, appraisal of evidence based on reason by the Appellate authority cannot be interfered with.
9. For the reasons given above, this revision fails and is dismissed. Tenant (petitioner) is, however, allowed 3 months time to vacate the demised premises and put the landlord in vacant possession thereof. No order as to costs.