LexSMT. SHASHI JAIN versus TARSEM LAL (DEAD) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 404 A SMT. SHASHI JAIN v. T ARSEM LAL (DEAD) & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3623 of 2001) MARCH 31, 2009 ~ B [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] Rent Control - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, c 1949 - s.13(3)(a)(i)(a) and s.13(2)(ii)(a) - Eviction under - Ground of bonafide personal requirement of landlord and of sub-letting by tenant without consent of landlord - Held: On facts, the appellant-landlady proved on record that she bonafide required the demised premises for her personal use 1'- D and occupation and that respondent no.1-tenant had sub-let the demised premises to respondent No.2 without consent of the landlady - Orders passed by Rent Controller and appellate authority which returned findings adverse to the landlady as also the unreasoned order passed by High Court E while dismissing revision petition filed by the landlady set aside - Petition for eviction allowed - Revision. The property in question was situated in Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Appellant-landlady filed application under F Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of respondent no.1-tenant I from the said property inter a/ia on grounds a) that the landlady required the said property for her own personal use and occupation and also for use and occupation of her aged mother and b) that respondent no.1 had sub-let the G demised premises to respondent no.2 without the written consent of appellant-landlady. The Rent Controller dismissed the application. The order was affirmed by the appellate authority. Appellant filed revision petiticm, which was dismissed by the High Court. H 404 SHASHI JAIN v. TARSEM LAL (DEAD) & ANR. 405 ~ In appeal to this Court, during pendency of which A respondent no.1 died, two questions arose for consideration, viz., (i) whether the landlady-appellant had proved on record that she bonafide required the demised -- premises for her personal use and occupation; and (ii) - -1 whether respondent no.1-tenant had sub-let the demised B premises to respondent No.2 without the consent of the landlady. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. In support of her claim of bona fide c requirement of the demised premises, the appellant- landlady in her deposition as AW-1 categorically stated that respondent no.1 had shifted his residence from the -- demised premises finally to a new residence consisting _.. of two rooms located at the back side of his 'Dhaba'. AW- D 5 the mother of the landlady corroborated her testimony. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the claim of requirement of the premises in dispute made by the landlady on flimsy and intangible ground holding that the landlady was residing at Mohali the place of her E posting as a teacher in Education Board, though it was the specific case of the landlady that she in fact was residing at Mohali in one room because of her employment as a Government Servant and occasionally ~ she used to visit Ludhiana to look after her mother. It was F established by the landlady that had she got the possession of the demised premises from the tenant when he had shifted to his new residence located at the - back side of the 'Dhaba', she could have immediately occupied the premises and started living along with her G old mother therein. It is her evidence that had she got the ;"""1 vacant possession of the demised premises, she would have commuted from Ludhiana to Chandigarh to attend her official duties as the distance between these two places is neither far-off nor time consuming. The tenant H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 5 S.C.R. A could not rebut and controvert the acceptable evidence of the landlady on any material aspect. On the contrary, it finds stated in the order of the Rent Controller that the tenant and his brothers who appeared as RW - 7 and RW- 8 respectively, have admitted the said statement of AW B landlady. [Para 17) (418-E-H; 419-A-C] 1.2. As regards the other ground on which the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the landlady on the point of bona fide requirement, viz, that the mother of the landlady owned one more house C at Ludhiana, which was in occupation of the brother of the mother of the landlady and the house could be shared by the landlady and her mother, it has been proved by the landlady that her mother being an old woman has to be looked after by her
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.