MANMOHAN SHARMA Vs. SWARAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents-landlords (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents") filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") through their duly constituted Power of Attorney, Balbir Singh, seeking ejectment of the tenant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") from the ground floor portion of H.No. 699, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises"), inter-alia on the grounds of non- payment of rent w.e.f. 1.5.1998 onwards and bona fide personal necessity. The landlords are co-owners of the demised premises alongwith Manmohan Singh Grewal and Savraj Singh Grewal. The tenant is in use and occupation of the entire ground floor portion of the aforesaid house at a rent of Rs. 250/- per month, excluding water and electricity charges. Both the respondents, mother and son are presently residing in the United Kingdom. They intend to permanently settle down at Chandigarh. Therefore, it is pleaded that the demised premises are required for their own use and occupation. The landlady, respondent No. 1, is stated to be 75 years of age. She lives on the 1st Floor as and when she comes from England to Chandigarh. Respondent No. 2 is married and has three children. Therefore, it was stated by the respondents that the demised premises i.e. the ground floor of the house are required for the occupation of the family. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that she finds it difficult to climb the stairs to the first floor due to old age. Furthermore, she is suffering from Asthma and heart disease. Similarly, the son, respondent No. 2 has undergone bye-pass surgery and is also a patient of heart disease. The respondents reside in West Yorkshire in England. In paragraph 5 of the petition it is stated as under :-

(2.) THE respondents had earlier also filed petitions for eviction of the petitioner. The petitions were, however, dismissed. The first eviction petition filed by the late husband of respondent No. 1 on the same grounds was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh on 22.11.76. The second petition filed by respondent No. 1 and Amar Singh was dismissed by the then rent Controller on 10.3.1 982. It was averred that the ground floor of the house had been let out through Amar Singh. The appeal filed against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 9.3.1983.

(3.) IN order to prove their case, respondent No. 1, landlady appeared as PW1. Balbir Singh appeared as PW2. Medical certificate, Ex.P1 and the power of attorney in favour of Balbir Singh, Ex.P2 were tendered as documentary evidence. The petitioner-tenant examined himself as his own witness RW1. He tendered in evidence certified copy of the judgment dated 10.3.1982 and 3.9.83, Ex R-1 and Ex R-2. Issues No. 1 and 2 were not pressed. The main contest between the parties was with regard to issue No. 3.