Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 973
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Surinder Mohan Aggarwal
Versus
Krishan Mohan Madhok
Civil Revisions No. 2325 of 1993,
Decided On : AUGUST 24, 2000
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the ejectment application based on the ownership, landlord-tenant relationship, and the bona fide requirement for the landlord's use and occupation.
Headnote:
Ejectment - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - Sec. 13-A - [KEYWORD] - [Ejectment] - [Sec. 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949] - The court discussed the ownership of the property, the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the requirement of the premises for the landlord's own use and occupation. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions of ownership, landlord-tenant relationship, and the bona fide requirement for the landlord's use and occupation, influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an ejectment application against the respondent, claiming ownership of the building and the need for the premises for personal use. The respondent contested the application, denying the petitioner's ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was the owner of the property and entitled to maintain the ejectment application. It also found that the petitioner required the premises for his own use and occupation, and the application was not barred under Sec. 14 of the Act or by the principle of res judicata.
Issues: The issues included the relationship of landlord and tenant, the ownership of the property, the liability of the respondent to be ejected, the effect of earlier proceedings, and the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as the owner or co-owner, could maintain the ejectment application. It also emphasized the bona fide requirement for the landlord's use and occupation as a valid ground for ejectment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's revision, ordering the respondent to be ejected from the premises and granting three months for vacation.
1. Surinder Mohan Aggarwal (petitioner-herein) filed application under Sec. 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against Krishan Mohan Madhok respondent for the ejectment of the latter from, building bearing No. B-XIX-154/A situated at Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana which is bounded as under:-
East:Hem Raj AgarwalWest:StreetNorth:Rani Jhansi RoadSouth:Avinash Kaliashown red in plan Ex. A-1 attached thereto, on the allegations, that he is owner-landlord of this building. One Banarsi Dass Advocate was a tenant in a portion of the building in question at monthly rent of Rs. 550/-. He had sublet the property to the respondent. Petitioner filed application under Sec. 13 of the Act against Banarsi Dass on a few grounds including the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting in the year 1980 and order of ejectment was passed aainst the respondent and Banarsi Dass by Shri SS Tiwana, Rent Controller, Ludhiana on 19-5-1982. Krishan Mohan Madhok filed appeal which was dismissed on 7-3-1986 by Shri R.L. Anand, Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, Krishan Mohan Madhok went in revision to the High Court, which was allowed on 19-5-1989 and Krishan Mohan Madhok was not held to be subtenant but direct tenant and Banarsi Dass was not held to be tenant. Surinder Mohan Aggarwal petitioner has alleged in this ejectment application filed in March 1992 that Krishan Mohan Madhok has been held to be tenant in the building. The respondent is in possession of the entire building and he has been held to be tenant. He becomes tenant under the petitioner. There is thus relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. It has been further alleged that he is "specified landlord." Earlier, he was in the service of the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the Education Department. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-3-1991. At the time of his retirement from service, he was Principal of Government College, Nalagarh in Himachal Pradesh. He is entitled to receive rent in respect of the building in question on his own account. He requires the building in question for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his family as residence. After retirement, he has been putting up in the MLA quarters at Simla. Government is not permitting him to keep occupying the MLA quarters at Simla. He belongs to Ludhiana where he holds ancestral property and most of his relation, nears and dears are residing in Ludhiana. In the vicinity where this building is situated number of his close relations are residing. His family consists of his own self, his two daughters and wife. His eldest daughter is married. She often visits him with her family. His second daughter is unmarried. She has passed MBBS and is planning to start practice at Ludhiana after doing MD. His aged father is also to put with him at Ludhiana. He wants to shift to Ludhiana along with his family and reside amongst his nears and dears and close relations. He has no accommodation of his own at Simla. Government is not permitting him to keep occupying MLA quarters at Simla, which he is presently occupying and proceedings for recovery of penal rent from him are pending against him at Simla. He has not vacated any accommodation at Ludhiana without any sufficient cause. He has no other accommodation at Ludhiana except the building in question. So far as respondent is concerned, he has ceased to occupy the building in question. Earlier, he was occupying the building in question. He locked it and shifted to Faridabad about 10 months ago. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he retired on 31-3-1991 from Himachal Pradesh Government service. He has been given certificate by the Joint Secretary, Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh showing his retirement from service w.e.f. 31-3-1991.
2 Respondent Krishan Mohan Madhok contested this application. It was denied that the
