Back
1987 Supreme(P&H) 546
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.V.Seghal, J.
Kapil Dev Gupta
Versus
Ram Kishan
C.R. No. 3652 of 1986,
Decided On : AUGUST 18, 1987
A specified landlord under Section 2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has a right to recover possession of the premises owned by him under Section 13A of the Act if he satisfies the Controller that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside.
Headnote:
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 13A - SECTION 13(3)(A)(I) - SECTION 2(HH) - A specified landlord under Section 2(hh) of the Act has a right to recover possession of the premises owned by him under Section 13A of the Act if he satisfies the Controller that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside.
Fact of the Case:
Kapil Dev Gupta, the petitioner, filed an application under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking ejectment of the respondent, his tenant, from two rooms, a kitchen, and a baithak in a house in Patiala. The petitioner claimed that he retired from service and wanted to settle permanently in the house in dispute, as he did not own or occupy any other residential house in the urban area.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had satisfied the conditions under Section 13A of the Act, as he did not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in Patiala and intended to reside in the house in dispute. The court held that the Rent Controller erred in considering the petitioner's need for the premises as mala fide and in going into the question of bona fide need.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions under Section 13A of the Act to recover possession of the premises from the respondent. 2. Whether the Rent Controller erred in considering the petitioner's need for the premises as mala fide and in going into the question of bona fide need.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a specified landlord under Section 2(hh) of the Act has a right to recover possession of the premises owned by him under Section 13A of the Act if he satisfies the Controller that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside. Once the petitioner expressed his intention to reside in his native town of Patiala in the residential house owned by him and satisfied the aforesaid condition, he has the right to recover immediately the possession of the demised premises, which is admittedly a residential building. The Rent Controller could not go into the question of "bona fide need etc."
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Rent Controller, and allowed the petitioner's application under Section 13A of the Act. The respondent was granted three months to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the petitioner.
D.V.Seghal, J.
1. Kapil Dev Gupta petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller, Patiala under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short `the Act), by filing an application for ejectment of the respondent, who is tenant under him, from two rooms, one kitchen and one baithak adjacent to the deodhi on the ground floor of house No. 1398/2, situated in Jand Gali near Darshani Gate, Patiala. He alleged in the application that the said premises were let out to the respondent for the purpose of residence at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. Thus, there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He claimed that he was in the service of the Government of India and was posted at Delhi and it was for this reason that he had let out the said premises to the respondent. He retired from service on 30.9.1981 and wanted to settle permanently at his native place Patiala in the house in dispute. He, therefore, prayed that an order should be passed in his favour for recovery of possession of the premises from the respondent. He averred that he neither owned nor was occupying any residential house in the urban area concerned nor had he vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act.
2. Notice of the application was given by the learned Rent Controller to the respondent who moved an application for leave to contest the ejectment application. He was granted leave and the learned Rent Controller proceeded to decide the application on merits taking into consideration the defence raised by the respondent and ultimately dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 13.9.1986. The petitioner is aggrieved against this order and has therefore invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 18A of the Act.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings and the evidence brought on the record by the parties before the learned Rent Controller. I am satisfied that the order under revision passed by the learned Rent Controller is contrary to law and is perverse. It has resulted in miscarriage of justice. This would be evident from the discussion that follows.
4. The case of the petitioner as brought out through his application and the evidence adduced is that his grandfather Telu Ram was the owner of house No. 1398/2 situated in Jand Gali near Darshani Gate Patiala, of which the demised premises is a part. On the death of Telu Ram his three sons, namely, Lachhman Dass, Ram Chand and Chet Ram, succeeded to his estate and became the owner of the said house in equal shares. They effected a normal partition of the house and have been in separate possession of their respective portions. They have also paying house-tax separately. The case, thus, set up by the petitioner was supported by Bhim Aggarwal A.W. 2/A and A.W. 2/B. The site plan Ex. A.W. 2/A depicts the accommodation in the house in dispute on the ground floor. It shows that the portion of the house shown in green colour is in possession of Lachhman Dass son of Telu Ram. It consists of two rooms, one Dalan and one kitchen. The portion shown in red colour had fallen to the share of the Ram Chand son of Telu Ram. It consists of three rooms, a baithak near deodhi and a kitchen. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the only son of Ram Chand. On the death of Ram Chand, the petitioner became the owner of the said portion of the house and out of this portion he let out two rooms, one baithak and one kitchen to the respondent while he continued to keep in his possession one room in the rear shown in red dots. The site plan Ex. A.W. 2/B pertains to the first floor of said house. It consists of three rooms and an open terrace. These rooms are shown in green colour and had fallen to the share of Chet Ram son of Telu Ram, on the death of Chet Ram, these are owned by his two sons - Dhanan Jai and Bhim
