J.V. Gupta, J.@mdashThis is landlady''s petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
2. Originally, Man Singh etc. were the owner-landlords of the premises in dispute. They sold the same vide registered sale deed dated 14-7-1982
to Smt. Nathia, who became its owner-landlady qua the tenant Nand Kishore. The house in question bearing No. 1006 consists of four rooms, a
Verandah and Kitchan etc. At the time of sale deed, it was being occupied by four tenants. The landlady filed the present ejectment application on
21-5-1983, inter alia, on the grounds that she bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation. At present her family consists of
eleven members which also includes the family of his one married son. At present she was in occupation of only one room which was not sufficient
for her accommodation. The tenant Nand Kishore is in occupation of two rooms. In the written statement, the tenant denied the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties. He further pleaded that the accommodation already available with the landlady is sufficient for her and
other members of her family and in any case, she has many houses in Karnal. So the petition is mala fide.
3. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlady has failed to prove that she bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation.
In appeal, the said finding of the learned Rent Controller was maintained. According to the Appellate Authority, ""it is note worthy that in spite of
the size of the family which as per the own showing of the Petitioner is eleven members, she has been pulling on in one room in which her married
son and his wife also reside. From this it necessarily follows that they had so adjusted themselves that they did not feel inconvenience in a single
room."" Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this petition in this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that keeping in view the number of the members of the family and the present accommodation in
occupation of the landlady, her requirements was bona fide. According to the learned Counsel, as a matter of fact, for having comfortable living,
she purchased the house in dispute in July, 1982. At the time of sale, she was residing in one rented room. Lateron, two rooms were vacated by
two tenants in the house in dispute which were occupied by her and she is now in occupation of two rooms vacated by Thakar Dass and Ram
Parshad tenants. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the tenants submitted that she has got other houses also in the urban area concerned,
rather she is in the habit of purchasing houses and selling the same subsequently.
5. After going through the evidence on the record, I find that whole approach of the authorities below is illegal, improper and misconceived. When
the landlady appeared in the witness box, no question was put to her as to whether she owns or possesses any other property in the urban area
concerned. When the tenant appeared in the witness box, though he stated that there are three/four houses, but he was unable to give their
numbers Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on the record that the landlady owns or possesses any other house except the house in dispute.
Once it is so found then her requirement to eject her tenant Nand Kishore was quite apparent. Her family consists of eleven members including the
family of her married son. The observation of the learned Appellate Authority that since earlier the landlady was living in one room and did not feel
inconvenience and has thus, adjusted herself was wholly, improper and misconceived. Admittedly, with the passage of time, the children have
grown up and they require more space. Moreover, even if earlier they were living in one room that did not mean that they must continue in that
situation for all times to come. She purchased that house for her comfortable living and was thus, entitled to seek ejectment of her tenants for her
bona fide requirement
6. Another ground taken by the learned Appellate Authority was that the landlady has not occupied the portion vacated by Thakar Dass and Ram
Parshad tenants. This fact is not borne out from the record, rather the landlady as A.W. 5 has categorically stated that she has occupied the same
during the pendency of this petition. Thus, the said finding is against the evidence on the record. Consequently, this petition succeeds The impugned
orders are set aside and an eviction order is passed against the tenant Nand Kishore and his son Jagdish, with costs.
7. However, the tenants are allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided an undertaking in writing is given before the Rent
Controller that after expiry of the said period, the vacant possession will be handed over to the landlady and the rent for the said period would be
paid/deposited in advance by the 10th of every month.
