CHARAN SINGH Vs. PAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but the eviction order was passed in appeal.

(2.) PAT Ram, landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant from a room in a residential building situated at Kharar. It was alleged that Charan Singh was a tenant in the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. Charan Singh had sublet the premises to his son Gurnam Singh who was in exclusive possession of the demised premises and therefore, the was liable to be ejected. A plea was also taken that since the demised premises were part of the residential building, the landlord bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation as he had a large family and the accommodation in his possession was insufficient to meet his requirement. The petition was contested inter alia on the ground that the premises were let out to both the father and the son. Thus, there was no question of sub-letting, as alleged. The landlord was in occupation of sufficient accommodation for his use and occupation. The Rent Controller found that the tenant Charan Singh was not proved to have walked out of the premises. The premises, in question, were a shop and not a residential building and that it was given on rent as a shop and the subletting was not proved. As regards the ground of personal necessity, the learned Rent Controller found that it was an after-thought that it was raised at the last stage by way of amendment. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the demised premises were rented out only to Charan Singh and not to the father and the son, as claimed by the tenant. It was further found that the tenant Charan Singh had taken on rent another building from one Gyani where he was doing the business of washing clothes etc. Thus, from the facts of the present case, it was held that the demised premises were in exclusive possession of Gurnam Singh son of the tenant and that he was the proprietor of the business being done in the said shop. A further finding was also given that it was clear that Charan Singh had left the possession of the premises by taking other shop on rent from one Gyani as admitted by him and he had handed over the exclusive possession to him. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the tenant had taken another shop for doing his business, he was no more in occupation of the demised premises. Moreover, the business done in the demised premises is owned by his son only and he was in exclusive possession on thereof. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the finding of the appellate authority in this behalf was perfectly valid and could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on Prem Kumar v. Yash Paul, 1985(2) R.L.R. 11 and Smt. Sita Devi v. Chaman Lal, 1985(1) R.L.R. 49.