N.K. SINGLA Vs. DHARAM PAL UPPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant revision petition, the petitioner- tenant has challenged the impugned order dated 31.5.2010 whereby his eviction has been ordered from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord and the order dated 8.2.2011 whereby his appeal against the aforesaid eviction order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh.

(2.) Brief facts out of which the instant revision petition has arisen are that the respondent who is the landlord inducted the petitioner as tenant in the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 3100/- excluding water and electricity charges. The respondent landlord filed ejectment application seeking eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of non payment of rent and that the premises in question are required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. Eviction was also sought on the ground that petitioner has changed the user of the premises.

(3.) It is relevant to note that while pleading the need of the respondent it was also averred that the respondent was living in Ludhiana with his son, daughter-in-law and their family but relations between him and his daughter-in-law and son have deteriorated. The respondent was unable to live in such hostile environment in an atmosphere where his living has become suffocating with frequent insults and humiliations. Thus, the petitioner was living under great tension and restlessness which factors have disturbed his peace of mind and tranquility in his old age and in such circumstances, he does not want to live at Ludhiana and wants to shift to Chandigarh in his own house which was in occupation of the petitioner. Upon notice petitioner filed written statement, raised various preliminary objections such as; the present petition was not maintainable as the respondent has not approached the Court with clean hands, upto date rent stood paid. Landlord had earlier filed a rent petition which stood disposed of and thus the present petition amounts to res judicata. It was also averred that the respondent landlord was estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present petition by raising a new ground of deterioration of relationship between him, his son and daughter-in-law as the alleged ground was already in existence at the time of filing of earlier petition for ejectment. It was averred that the petitioner was a statutory tenant after his retirement on 31.8.2005 as thereafter he started imparting consultancy at the house in question. Hence, the said building has become a scheduled building as provided under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and the respondent cannot take benefit of the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.