TARLOK CHAND Vs. SWARAN KAUR

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.) LAND lady Shrimati Swaran Kaur sought the ejectment of her tenant inter alia on the ground that he was in arrears of rent from January 1, 1983, to September 30, 1986 The premises were required foe her personal use and that she had no other house in the urban area concerned and had' not vacated any house after coming into operation of the rent Act. In the written statement, it was pleaded that only one room without water and electricity was rented out to him on January 1, 1983 and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 40/ -. The demised premises were being used for manufacturing locks and keys and as such they could not be got vacated for personal.

(3.) ON the first date of hearing, tenant deposited the arrears of tent at the rate Rs. 40/-par months. The learned Rent Controller found that the tender made was valid. However, on the question of personal necessity, it was held that the landlady did not require the premises for her own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the tender made at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month was invalid as the rent was Rs. 60/- par month though the landlady claimed it at the rate of Rs. 350/-per month. Since the tenant only paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per months the tender was invalid, during the appeal, the landlady moved an application under Order V Rule 17. Code of Civil Procedure, to plead that during; the pendency of the appeal, her husband had died on June 16 1987. He was residing in rented small Government accommodation and now she will have to shift to his village and occupy the demised premises Notice of the application was given to the tenant bat no reply was filed.- However. the appellate authority found that after the death of her husband, the house had been allotted to her son and, therefore, there was no bonafide requirement. However, in view of the short tender, the eviction order was Passed.