USHA MUKERJEE Vs. SHRI MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land-Lady petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Patiala dated 22nd January, 1979, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the application for ejectment of the tenant, was maintained.

(2.) The landlady petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), for the ejectment of her tenant-respondent from the demised premises bearing No. R-23/562, Bahera Road, Patiala, which was let out to the tenant as a rented land. According to the allegations in the application the demised premises consisted plot of one of land, with a Kotha thereon and were leased out for running coal Depot by the tenant. The ejectment was sought on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own use. She further pleaded that she has not vacated any such rented land after the commencement of the Act, nor she is in occupation of any such rented land in the urban area concerned. The petition was contested on behalf of the tenant and it was pleaded inter-alia that the application had been moved mala fide, to put pressure on him to increase the rent, which had already been increased twice. It was also pleaded that the land lady wrote letters to him asking him to increase the rent to Rs. 75/- per month and then she verbally demanded Rs. 100/- per month. It was also pleaded that previously a similar application was filed taking this plea that the land-lady wrote letters to him asking him to wanted to construct the house for her own residence, but later on the same was withdrawn with a permission to file a fresh application. He further pleaded that the land-lady is running a school in a building belonging to her and not to Miss Shanti Bannerjee, her real sister. The pleas was also taken that the premises in dispute is not rented land there being construction thereon as alleged by the land-lady herself and, therefore, it is non-residential building which could not be got vacated for her own use and occupation. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(3.) On issue No. 1 it was held by the Rent Controller that the premises in dispute is not a rented land and falls within the definition of non residential building, as defined in the Act. On issue No. 2 it was found that the premises were non required bonafide for own use by the landlady but, in any case the premises having been found to be non-residential building, this ground was not available to her. Issue No. 3 was held in favour of the land-lady. In view of the findings on issues No. 1 and 2 the application was dismissed. In appeal all the findings of the Rent Controller have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this, the land-landy has come in revision in this Court.