Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prit Pal Kaur vs B.S. Ahuja on 13 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)113PLR592, 1997 A I H C 1676, 1996 HRR 356, (1996) 113 PUN LR 592, (1996) 1 RENCR 630, (1996) 2 RENTLR 305, 1996 REVLR 2 159
Author: Sarojnei Saksena
Bench: Sarojnei Saksena
JUDGMENT Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Petitioner-landlord has filed this revision against the Rent Controller's impugned order dated 22.7.1995 whereby Under Section 19(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the 'Act') the tenant-respondent is granted leave to contest.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant Under Section 13-A of the said Act alleging that she is a Head Mistress, her husband is a retired Consultant Engineer. She has three sons. All the three sons are married. She is occupying ground floor of the suit house. Its one room is occupied by the respondent-tenant. The accommodation in her possession is neither suitable nor sufficient for her and her family members residence. Her two sons are residing in America. They have locked one room each where their belongings are kept. The third son is also got married on 1342.1994 and a separate room is required for this couple. She also requires a quest room and a separate bed room for other sons of the petitioner. Her husband needs two rooms for his tools and books. She also needs one room to do her tution work. Hence, on these grounds, she sought respondent-tenant's eviction.
3. Tenant filed a petition seeking leave to defend alleging that the petitioner has made false averments that two rooms of the ground floor are locked by her two sons, who are residing in America. According to him, third son is also married but as his wife is residing in America so he is also likely to shift to U.S.A. Her husband is not doing any business. She is having four living rooms with drawing-cumdinning room and a garage on the ground floor in her occupation. This accommodation is sufficient and suitable for her residence. Only with an intention to enhance the rent, she has filed this petition to evict him.
4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties the learned Rent Controller has granted leave to defend to the tenant.
5. Petitioners-landlord's learned counsel relying on Kapil Narain Raina, Advocate of Chandigarh v. Lt. Col. S.S. Gill, 1989(2) R.C.R. 485, Daya Parkash Mahendru v. Darshan Lal, 1993(1) R.C.R. 383, Sushil Kumar v. S.S. Sharma, 1991(2) R.C.R. 463, Savitri Devi Dutta of Chandigarh v. Smt. Shakuntla Khullar, (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 324, contended that the Rent Controller cannot decide whether the accommodation in occupation of the landlord is sufficient for his or her residence. Further relying on Yashpal Dhir v. Sh. R.N.S. Gosain, (1992-1)101 P.L.R. 539, he valiantly argued that the point of bonafide requirement is not justiciable. The Rent Controller cannot go into the question.
6. Respondent-tenant's learned counsel relying on Jagdish Puri v. Kundan Lal Thapar, (1993-3)105 P.L.R. 306 contended that sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation with the landlord can be examined by the Rent Controller. When the landlord seeks tenant's ejectment on the basis of his or her bonafide requirement and if this contention is disputed by the tenant and raised a point in issue, then the Rent Controller is required to decide it.
7. In this case, the facts are slightly different. The impugned order was passed on 22.7.1995 thereby leave was granted to the respondent-tenant; he filed written statement; issues have been framed and parties evidence is being adduced. Petitioner-landlord has already been examined and cross-examined. Now her two witnesses remain to be examined. Further petitioner-landlord has alleged certain facts to prove that the accommodation in her occupation is neither suitable nor sufficient for her residence. She has alleged that her two sons have gone abroad and they have locked one room each. Third son is also married and a separate room is required for the couple. This son is also living with his father who intends to start a business. She also needs a room for her tution work. The tenant has not only denied the bona fides of said requirement but has also alleged that the accommodation in occupation of the landlord-petitioner is suitable for her and her family members residence. He has denied that her two sons have kept one room each locked in the suit house.
8. No doubt, the landlord is the sole arbiter of his or her own need. If the landlord seeks an ejectment on the ground that he requires more accommodation for his residence and the accommodation in his occupation is neither sufficient nor suitable and if the tenant disputes that assertion, the Rent Controller is required to decide that point in controversy. Points of suitability and sufficiency from this angle are justiciable.
9. Thus, considering the facts of the case, in my considered view, the learned Rent Controller has not fallen into any error in granting leave to defend to the tenant-respondent. Accordingly, revision being meritless is hereby dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 800/-.