High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an eviction order under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The Court upheld findings that the old premises were unsafe and the landlord lacked adequate accommodation.
Revision petition dismissed; eviction order upstood.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5149 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 07.10.2009
Vijay Kumar and another .....Petitioners versus Arjun Lal Mehta and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
-.-
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This revision petition is directed by the tenants against whom an eviction order dated 26.3.2008, passed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') by the Rent Controller, Rewari, has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Rewari vide its impugned judgment dated 22.7.2009. [2] Shorn of the details, the respondent-landlords filed an ejectment application, inter-alia, averring that the demised premises comprising a residential house in Rewari, was let out to the petitioners @ Rs.80/- per month w.e.f. 1.8.1988. At that time, respondent No.1 (Arjun Lal Mehta) was employed with the National Agricultural Cooperative
C.R. No.5149 of 2009 (O&M) 2
Market Federation of India Limited (for short `the NAFED') at Delhi, from where he retired on 31.5.1999. Respondent No.1 averred that he wanted to settle at his native place Rewari and required the house in dispute for his bonafide use and occupation. The respondent No.1 disclosed in the eviction petition that he has a two bed room DDA Flat in Delhi and has three sons, namely, Puneet Mehta, Deepak Mehta and Vineet Mehta. Out of his three sons, one is already married and others two are unmarried and all of them are residing together in the same flat which is wholly insufficient accommodation for the reason that his other two sons are also aged about 26 & 24 years old respectively, and are in marriageable age and additional accommodation is required for them as well. The respondent No.1 further averred that there is no other property owned by him nor he has sold or rented out any such property since the year 1949.
[3] The respondent No.1 further pleaded that the demised premises is in dilapidated condition and is also unfit and unsafe for human habitation as its construction is more than 100 years old. The roof is made with slabs resting on wooden beams; the planks have damaged due to termites and there are several cracks in the walls and the roof of the demised premises. The non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.1997 was also taken as one of the ground for eviction.
[4] The petitioners contested the eviction petition and took a preliminary objection denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The site plan produced by the respondent-landlords with the eviction petition was also disputed. It was also averred that the
C.R. No.5149 of 2009 (O&M) 3
DDA Flat owned by respondent No.1 contains four big rooms and his two sons are already settled in Delhi, while one son is studying in Rohtak. On this premise, it was claimed that respondent No.1 did not require the demised premises for his own use and occupation. It was further alleged that the plea taken by the landlord is self-contradictory inasmuch if the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation then how can it be used by the respondents, for their own residential purpose? It is also denied that the building is in dilapidated condition or there are cracks in the walls and the roof.
[5] Both the parties led their respective evidence and on consideration thereof, the Rent Controller, having regard to the report of the Expert (Ex.AW3/1) and site plan (Ex.AW3/2); the fact that the building is constructed with old Nanakshahi bricks in lime mortar; the wooden beams are pretty old and the flooring and walls bear vertical cracks and the beams have lost their strength, came to the conclusion that the demised premises is quite unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
[6] As regards the ground of personal necessity, the Rent Controller held that the landlord(s) needs the demised premises for his own use and occupation as he wants to demolish and reconstruct the same. The strength of the respondent's family-members consisting three sons, one already married and two in marriageable age, and also the size of the DDA flat proved by the documents on record (Ex.AW4/1 and AW4/5) have been been kept in view. The Rent Controller concluded that the present accommodation with the respondent is insufficient and the need pleaded
C.R. No.5149 of 2009 (O&M) 4
for the demised premises by him, is totally bonafide. The eviction petition was accordingly allowed. The petitioners went in appeal which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Rewari vide the impugned judgment dated 22.7.2009.
[7] The Appellate Authority has re-appraised the entire evidence and concluded that the bonafide personal necessity pleaded by the respondent-landlords is fully justified. In this regard, the deposition of AW1 (Dr.Puneet Mehta) son of the respondent-landlord, wherein he deposed that he is 26 years old and is studying in Government Medical College, Rohtak and is unmarried and except the DDA flat or the house in dispute situated in Rewari, there is no other property owned by his father or his family, has also been relied upon. He has denied that the DDA flat is having four bed rooms. Similarly, the Appellate Authority has referred to the other evidence on record and concluded that the demised premises is more than 100 years old and there are number of cracks in its walls and roof as a result of which it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The landlord's plea that he wants to reconstruct a new house after demolishing the old one, has found favour with the Appellate Authority also and the petitioners' appeal has been accordingly dismissed.
[8] I have heard counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the impugned judgments. Similarly, the documents as handed over by the counsel including the pleadings etc., have also been perused. In my considered view, no interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is called for with the impugned orders.
C.R. No.5149 of 2009 (O&M) 5
[9] The question that arose for determination before the Courts below was as to whether or not the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and/or is required for by the landlord for his bonafide personal necessity. In this regard, the Courts below have referred to the report of the Experts produced by both the parties and taking into consideration the age of the building, the material used in construction of the building, namely, old Nanakshahi bricks in lime mortar, the old and weak wooden beams and the flooring and walls bearing vertical cracks, the Courts below have concurrently held that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. No case of misreading of the evidence or of over-looking any material piece of evidence, is made out and thus, no interference by this Court in the concurrent finding of fact that the demised premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation is called for.
[10] As regards the bonafide personal need of the landlord, suffice it to observe that the Courts below have categorically held that the respondent is in possession of a DDA flat comprising two bed rooms only. The petitioners nowhere have disputed the fact that the respondent No.1 has three sons, one of whom was already married and another one was doing MBBS in Government Medical College, Rohtak who was 21 years of age at that time and might be married now. The third son was 24 years of age and it is quite natural that by now, he might have also got married. The two bed rooms accommodation, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be sufficient for them and the need expressed for additional accommodation is fully justified. The respondent No.1 in his eviction
C.R. No.5149 of 2009 (O&M) 6
petition and also on oath has deposed that there is no other property owned by him except the DDA flat or the house in dispute. The respondent's decision to reside at his native place in Rewari (the evidence shows that in 1962-63, he was residing in Rewari), after retirement, therefore, cannot be termed a mere wish or desire. Nothing is wrong in asserting that the respondent wants to demolish the demised house and construct a new house for his residential purpose.
[11] For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
07-10-2009 Mohinder
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the eviction order under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, should be interfered with by the High Court in revision under Order 47 Rule 11 CPC.
Whether the landlord had established bona fide personal necessity by proving the premises were unfit for human habitation and insufficient family accommodation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Kumar
Arjun Lal Mehta
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
