PETITIONER: BABU LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: VINOD KUMAR & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/2000 BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra & Y.K. Sabharwal. JUDGMENT:
Y.K.SABHARWAL,J.
Leave granted.
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
The tenant is the appellant. By the impugned judgment
the second appeal filed by him has been dismissed by the
High Court at the admission stage finding that no
substantial question of law is involved. The facts in brief
are as follows:
A petition for eviction on various grounds was filed
against the appellant in the year 1979. The ground of
eviction relevant for the present purposes is only the bona
fide need of the respondents under clause (h) of sub-section
(1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1950. Under the said provision the Court
on being satisfied that the premises are required reasonably
and bona fide by the landlord for the use or occupation of
himself or his family members could pass a decree in favour
of the landlord directing the eviction of the tenant. In
the present case, a decree for eviction was passed against
the appellant on 12th February, 1986. The first appeal
filed by the appellant was dismissed by an Additional
District Judge on 6th May, 1993. The decree of the trial
court and the order in appeal were, however, set aside by
the High Court in second appeal preferred by the appellant.
In terms of the decision dated 21st December, 1993, the High
Court, inter alia, noticed that one of the grounds taken by
the tenant that another house was available for the
residence of the respondents and the said house had come in
their occupation after the decision of the suit by the trial
court had not been considered. In this view and also
keeping in view the fact that counsel for the respondents
did not dispute that the appellant was entitled to be
granted an opportunity to amend the written statement so
that the subsequent events can be brought on record, setting
aside the judgment and decree of the courts below, the High
Court remanded the case for fresh decision of the trial
court directing the trial court to allow the appellant to
amend the written statement to bring on record the
subsequent events of construction of a house and same being
available to the respondents/their father and other family
members and to allow the respondents to file replication, if
any, to the amended written statement to be filed by the
appellant and to decide the matter afresh after allowing the
parties to lead additional evidence on this point and taking
into consideration the evidence already recorded during the
trial. After remand two additional issues were framed by
the trial court which read as under:
Issue No.1-A: Whether, after construction of the house
bearing No.53-A, Ranjit Nagar, Bharatpur by the mother of
the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have no requirement of the
disputed Nauhra to get the same vacated in good faith, and
on this ground the suit of the plaintiffs is fit to be
dismissed?
Issue No.8-A: Whether in view of the statement
contained in para No.8 of the written statement filed during
the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs are left with no
requirement of the suit premises?
The trial court on consideration of the matter afresh by
judgment and decree dated 19th December, 1996, inter alia
held that the respondents have 27 members of their family
and there are only 13 rooms available to them and they
require the premises in dispute in good faith for their
residential use. The plea that after construction of House
No.53-A in Mohalla Ranjit Nagar by the mother of the
respondents they were left with no requirement of the
disputed house was negatived. The issue of comparative
hardship was also decided in favour of the respondents
holding that the appellant is not likely to suffer any
hardship if the disputed premises is got vacated from him
and that the respondents shall suffer more hardship in
comparison to the appellant if the disputed premises is not
vacated by the appellant. The judgment and decree of the
trial court was affirmed in appeal by the learned District
Judge in terms of the judgment dated 17.12.1999. The second
appeal having been dismissed, the tenant has filed the
present appeal. The litigation has already taken nearly 21
years.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not
find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings
recorded by all the courts. Dr.Rajiv Dhawan, learned
counsel for the appellant, however, contends that it was a
case of an open remand in terms of the decision of the High
Court dated 21st December, 1993 and has been wrongly treated
as a case of limited remand by the trial court. On the
facts and circumstances of the case it is not necessary to
go into this aspect. We would assume that it was a case of
open remand to reconsider afresh the ground of eviction for
the personal need of the respondents. Even so we find that
on consideration of the evidence, the trial court rightly
decreed the suit. There is also no merit in the other
contention that comparative hardship aspect has not been
taken into consideration by the trial court. As already
noticed, the trial court has held that the respondents shall
suffer more hardship in comparison to the appellant in case
the disputed premises is not vacated by the appellant. We
find no ground to interfere with the said findings.
There is no ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment. However, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the time to vacate the premises
is extended upto 31st December, 2001 instead of 30th June,
2001 as granted to the appellant by the High Court subject
to the appellant’s filing usual undertaking in this Court
within a period of four weeks.
Subject to the above variation, the appeal is dismissed
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
