Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Chopra vs Harbans Kaur on 2 May, 2008
Equivalent citations: (2008)151PLR526
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla
JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J.
1. The petitioner impugns orders dated 24.5.2005 and 19.9.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh as also the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner's ejectment has been ordered and the appeal filed against the order of ejectment has been dismissed, respectively.
2. The landlady-respondent is owner of House No. 1128, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. The petitioner is a tenant in the entire first floor comprising of one room, a kitchen and a toilet at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- excluding electricity and water charges. The landlady filed a petition for ejectment before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh praying for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of a bona fide personal requirement to occupy the tenanted premises.
3. The landlady alleged that she migrated to England with her husband in the year 1966. The house in question was purchased by the respondent along with her husband in the year 1971 and was built more than 30 years ago. House No. 78, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh was purchased in the year 1978. The landlady had rented out the ground floor to one Chamkaur Singh and the first floor to the petitioner. Her husband expired at Chandigarh on 7.4.1993 while they were visiting India. As she had decided to return India and reside in Chandigarh, she filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground floor. The ejectment petition was allowed by the Rent Controller, the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed on 8.1.2001 and the revision filed by the tenant was also dismissed. The respondent obtained possession of the ground floor and thereafter filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner.
4. The landlady asserted that though she owns house No. 78, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, built upon a 2 kanal plot, it is too big for her to reside in and manage. She has, therefore, decided to occupy the present house and being aged lady has requested her sister Smt. Harjinder Kaur and her brother-in-law to live with her. She has also decided to employ a couple to look after her house-hold work and has purchased a car and employed a driver. Being a Sikh by faith, she has decided to keep Sri Guru Granth Sahib, for which she requires a separate room. The landlady requires a separate bed room each for herself, her sister and her brother-in-law and one room for her domestic help and one for Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The accommodation available on the ground floor is inadequate and does not meet her requirements. Besides the paucity of accommodation, the landlady also asserted that in view of the design of the house, the staircase leading to the first floor starts from a common area of the house and is constructed in such a manner that a person going to the first floor can easily enter the ground floor.
5. The petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted that the landlady has concealed material facts regarding the accommodation available on the ground floor. It was emphatically denied that the landlady requires the building for her personal use and occupation. It was asserted that the landlady wants to increase the rent and or dispose of the property.
6. Upon an appraisal of the pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:
1. Whether there exists landlord tenant relationship between the parties as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of personal requirement of the petitioner as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands? OPR
5. Relief.
7. After a considered appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Rent Controller accepted the landlady's plea that she requires the premises for her own use and occupation and ordered for the eviction of the petitioner.
8. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dismissed the appeal.
9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgments are illegal and perverse and, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is argued that the landlady, admittedly owns another house in Sector 18-A, Chandigarh. Though the said house is occupied by a tenant, the accommodation therein is more commoditious. The landlady should have sought ejectment of the tenant from the house situated in Sector 18.
It is further submitted that in proceedings relating to the ejectment of the tenant on the ground floor, the landlady, while deposing on oath, stated that the demised premises (namely the ground floor) "suits her requirement" from all angles. During her cross-examination she admitted that the first floor i.e. the premises occupied by the petitioner, were neither suitable nor sufficient for her requirement. It is, therefore, argued that as the landlady has admitted on oath that the first floor is neither suitable nor sufficient for her requirement, the learned Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority should have dismissed the ejectment petition.
10. It is also argued that as the landlady is already in possession the entire ground floor is a mere desire to occupy additional space and, therefore, does not fall within the meaning of the word "requirement" appearing in Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
11. Another argument pressed into service is that after the eviction of the tenant from the ground floor, the landlady has failed to occupy the ground floor as the telephone installed in the ground floor has been disconnected. As the landlady has failed to reside in the ground floor, her plea for ejectment of the petitioner from the small portion existing on the first floor is nothing but an attempt to seek ejectment so as to enhance the rent and or to sell the property. The landlady is a widow and has no children. The story that she has asked her sister and her brother-in-law to reside with her remains unsubstantiated and is even otherwise false. It is further argued that the staircase, leading to the first floor which is stated to be a nuisance to the person residing in the ground floor, has been in existence since the construction of the building and since the petitioner came to occupy it as a tenant. The staircase though passing through the ground floor does not cause any nuisance and has been unfairly relied upon by the Courts below to order the petitioner's ejectment. It is submitted that though a landlord/landlady may be the best judge of his/her requirement or the extent thereof, but as in the present case, the landlady has failed to establish the existence of any necessity/need, her desire to occupy a larger premises should not have been accepted by the Courts below.
12. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, or of law or any error in appreciation of evidence as would render the findings recorded by the Courts below perverse or arbitrary. It is argued that the landlady's statement in the ejectment petition, filed against the tenant on the ground floor, is irrelevant. Her statement has to be read in its entirety, in the context of the premises in dispute therein and in accordance with the questions that were put to her. The landlady was answering a question as to why she could not occupy the first floor and, therefore, stated that her necessity to occupy the ground floor, could not be satisfied by seeking ejectment of the tenant on the first floor. It is, therefore, submitted that the landlady's statement in the ejectment petition pertaining to the ground floors, is irrelevant.
13. It is further argued that in her pleadings as also in her deposition, the landlady has specifically and categorically stated that the entire house is in a dilapidated condition and requires renovation. After getting the entire house vacated, she would renovate the house in accordance with her requirement. The petitioner's contention that the accommodation on the ground floor is sufficient, is incorrect. It is further submitted that the landlady has explained her requirement in details, and as the bona fides of her requirement have been accepted by the Courts below, the impugned orders do not require interference. It is further submitted that in view of the nature of the requirement, the premises on the ground floor are inadequate. The petitioner having failed to establish the falsity thereof, the revision petition be dismissed.
14. As regards the question of violation of privacy as the staircase passes through the ground floor, it is submitted that the staircase is constructed in such a manner that a person going to the first floor has a complete view of the living area on the ground floor. This encroachment on the landlady's privacy, is a sufficient ground to order the petitioner's ejectment.
15. I have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned orders.
The Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority have returned concurrent findings of fact that the requirement pleaded by the landlady is bonafide. A perusal of the pleadings, the evidence on record and the findings returned by the learned Courts below disclose that they do not warrant interference. The Rent Act postulates that a High Court may, in the exercise of power under Section 15(5) of the Act, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality of propriety of such an order of such proceedings. Power under Section 15(5) of the Act, in the nature of revisional jurisdiction is limited to an appraisal of impugned orders or proceedings so as to discern any error of jurisdiction, infraction of law or such perversity in the process of reasoning as has led to a miscarriage of justice. Where an impugned order does not suffer from any of the above disabilities, this Court would be justified in refusing to entertain a revision petition.
16. A plea for ejectment on the ground of a bona fide personal necessity is available to a landlord/landlady under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act, provided the landlord/landlady establishes that he/she "requires" the tenanted premises for his/her own occupation. The word "requires" appearing in Section 13 has been interpreted by judicial precedents to connote a sincerity of desire, a genuineness of purpose and a need as distinguished from a mere whim or a desire. The requirement should be natural, real, honest and should be asserted in good faith, devoid of an element of deceit, fraud or mala fide. A landlord's/landlady's perception of the his/her personal necessity, namely the nature and the extent thereof, the premises to be occupied, are generally, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, accepted as bonafide. The onus to establish otherwise lies on the tenant. In the absence of any cogent evidence or material to doubt the bona fides of the landlord/landlady, a Court would accept the plea of the landlord/landlady. A Court cannot impose its perception of the state-of-affairs and the parameters of the necessity so pleaded.
17. As noticed in the narrative of facts, the landlady and her husband migrated to England in the year 1966. Her husband passed away on 7.4.1993. Thereafter the landlady decided to return to India and settle permanently at Chandigarh. She owns two houses namely the present house and house No. 78, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh. The landlady pleads that house No. 78, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh is constructed on a 2 kanal plot and is too big a house for her to manage, she, therefore, decided to reside in House No. 1128, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. For that purpose she filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant from the ground floor which was eventually allowed and possession of the ground floor was delivered to the landlady. In order to explain her requirement to occupy the tenanted premises situated on the first floor of the building, she pleaded and established her requirement by adducing cogent and consistent evidence. The landlady is an aged woman and cannot live alone. She has requested her sister and her brother-in-law to live with her. She has decided to employ a couple to look after her household work. She has also decided to purchase a car and to employ a driver. The landlady being a Sikh faith and religious by nature, has decided to keep Sri Guru Granth Sahib in her house and, therefore, requires one prayer room. As the accommodation on the ground floor consists of a drawing-cum-dining room, three bed rooms, a kitchen, a store and one bath room-cum-toilet it is inadequate. The landlady also asserts that the entire building is in a dilapidated condition and can only be renovated, if the petitioner vacates the premises on the first floor. She also raised a plea that the staircase leading to the first floor starts from a common area and, therefore, any one using staircase, has unhindered access to the ground floor. After considering the aforementioned assertions which were duly supported by evidence adduced by the landlady, the learned Rent Controlled as also the Appellate Authority held that the requirement, pleaded by the landlady, is bona flde.
18. The submission by counsel for the petitioner that in rent proceedings against the tenant on the ground floor, the landlady's deposition that the accommodation on the first floor was neither suitable nor sufficient for her requirement discloses an absence of any dire need, cannot be accepted. A perusal of the statement, relevant extract whereof is available in the grounds of revision filed by the petitioner, establishes that the landlady was deposing with respect to her requirement for the ground floor. In an ejectment petition relating to the ground floor of a building, a landlord cannot be expected to state that the first floor would be adequate to meet the requirement to occupy the ground floor. The landlady's statement has to be read in the context of the premises i.e. the ground floor.
19. Another argument that the landlady has sufficient accommodation on the ground floor and has in fact, not occupied the ground floor thus raising an inference that her requirement is a mere desire and not a need, cannot be accepted. A perusal of the pleadings, the impugned orders as also the evidence, clearly establishes that the landlady requires the tenanted premises. The paucity of accommodation on the ground floor has been succinctly established by the landlady and brought out in detail by the Courts be-low. A landlord/landlady is the best person to depose as to his/her requirement. The requirement of a landlord/landlady would vary from person to person and would depend upon various factor, namely the status of a person, his or her life style, personal needs etc. What may be sufficient for one may be entirely inadequate for another and, therefore, to set a specific inflexible standard or to draw up a formula to determine as to what would or would not be sufficient evidence to establish the bona fides or mala fides of a plea of requirement would be fraught with legal pitfalls, best avoided. The respondent is a well to do lady and has established the nature of her requirement. The onus to establish the falsity thereof, lay upon the tenant.
20. The tenant/petitioner on the other hand has not led any evidence that would enable this Court below in favour of the landlady are without jurisdiction, erroneous in law or suffer from such a perversity of reasoning as would require interference. The tenant's submission that the landlady has concealed material facts with respect to the accommodation on the ground floor or that she has not occupied the ground floor after its eviction, are irrelevant. The landlady's submission that she would renovate the entire building after the petitioner's ejectment, cannot be faulted and is only natural in the present circumstances. In the absence of any circumstance that would enable this Court to infer any mala fides on the part of the landlady, her statement that she requires the first floor, consisting of one room, a kitchen and a toilet has to be accepted as true. The landlady has specifically deposed that the house in question is in a dilapidated condition and requires extensive renovation. The accommodation on the first floor is a small room, a small kitchen and a toilet. The flight of stairs to the first floor is from a common place on the ground floor can be accessed unhindered by any person. The said fact has been admitted by the petitioner's witness. The landlady's deposition is fully supported by Dr. Balbir Singh Sandhu, PW2, husband of her sister and in my considered opinion, in the absence of any circumstance to doubt her bona fides, the instant revision petition must fail.
21. As the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law that would require interference, the present revision petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.