B.B. BAHL Vs. S. SAWINDER SINGH PATWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents-landlords initiated eviction action against the petitioner-tenant on an averment that they require the tenanted premises for their personal bonafide necessity; that the petitioner-tenant had done acts which had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises to the extent that it had led to the issuance of a notice for resumption thereof and that there had been change of user inasmuch as the leasing out of the tenanted premises was for the running of general business but the premises are being presently utilised for the purposes of hotel business.

(2.) It may be noticed, at the very outset, that the plea with regard to change of user of the tenanted premises was not pressed by the respondents-landlords in appeal. The learned Rent Controller had recorded a finding at the trial that the respondents-landlords have not been able to prove that plea. The fact that the relevant plea was not pressed in the course of arguments is noticed in para 2 of the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority. ("During the course of arguments in this appeal, landlords did not press the ground of change of user as this ground was held against them").

(3.) Both the Courts (i.e. the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority) recorded a finding of concurrence upholding the plea raised by the respondents-landlords on point of personal bona fide necessity and also the commission of acts by the tenant which (acts) have caused material impairment in the value and utility of the premises aforementioned.