ROSHAN LAL NIRULA Vs. SANTOSH MAHENDROO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Roshan Lal Narula (now dead and substituted by the legal representatives) took on rent a premises in Chandigarh from the respondent on 1.6.1971, admittedly, for residential purpose alone. The said Roshan Lal Narula started his practice as a lawyer in October 1971 and began using a portion of the said premises for his professional purpose. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act') was extended to Chandigarh w.e.f. 4.11.1972. In October 1977, the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the aforesaid tenant Roshan Lal Narula on the grounds of her personal need and unauthorised change of user of the premises by the tenant.

(2.) The Rent Controller by his Order dated 12.3.1980 decreed eviction of the tenant from the said premises on the ground of unauthorised change of user of the premises after the coming into force of the aforesaid Act because of using a portion of the same for professional purposes. The Rent Controller also held that the bonafide need set up by the respondent-landlord had been adequately proved by the evidence adduced but no order for ejectment on that ground was made for the reason that the premises was a 'scheduled building' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act.

(3.) The tenant, Roshan Lal Narula, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority which was dismissed by Order dated 17.8.1981. The appellate order clearly states that the decision of the rent Controller on the ground of personal need of the landlord and that finding of fact was not challenged in appeal and the appeal was confined only to law points. The tenant preferred a revision to High Court which was dismissed by the order dated 23.2.1981. Hence this further appeal by special leave filed by the tenant.