PAWAN KUMAR PADAM @ PAPPU Vs. AMARJIT MIGLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant, who is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the petition of the landlord for ejectment has been allowed on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises in question and that the premises were required for the personal use and necessity of the brother of the landlord. The landlord filed the petition for ejectment of the tenant from the residential house bounded as East-Street, West-House of Lachhman Singh, North-Street, South-Rasta, situated in Ward No. 4/197, Samrala, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. In the ejectment application, it was pleaded that that the house was possessed by Smt. Krishna Devi-deceased mother of the landlord and the house had been let out by the landlord with the consent of the deceased mother and other brothers on 04.01.1994 @ Rs. 800 per month and thus there was a valid relationship of landlord and tenant. The ground of ejectment was arrears of rent from April 2000 plus house tax for the year 1999-2000 and electricity consumption charges, water supply and sewerage charges w.e.f. 1999 to 2001. It was also specifically pleaded that the tenant had shifted to his own house situated near Dharamshala Kalu Ram, Near Dabi Bazar, Samrala in the month of May 2001 and the house in question was lying vacant and locked without any reason and the tenant was not residing in the house in question and electric supply had been disconnected and the respondent had ceased to occupy the house in question. On the issue of personal necessity, the pleadings were that all the brothers had decided to settle the dispute regarding the property and the brother of the landlord Kulwant Rai was residing with the landlord and married with grown up children and required independent residence. So, the house was required for the bona fide residence of Kulwant Rai, brother of the landlord. Initially, the tenant was proceeded against ex parte on 27.07.2002 and on 09.08.2004, moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, which was allowed on 13.10.2004.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the tenant, the rate of rent was pleaded @ Rs. 200 per month and the ownership of Krishna Devi was admitted and the relationship of landlord-tenant with Hukam Chand, father of the landlord was pleaded. The relationship of the landlord and tenant was denied with the present respondent and it was mentioned that the tenant had paid the rent to Hukam Chand upto April 2001 @ Rs. 200 per month and also paid electricity, water supply and sewerage charges. The factum of shifting from the house and keeping the premises locked was denied and it was pleaded that the fact can be ascertained by appointment of the Local Commissioner. Similarly, the averment that the house in question was required for the residence of Kulwant Rai was also denied.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-