C L BHASIN Vs. B S CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of a landlord tenant dispute which has already travelled the course of two Rent Control Authorities, namely, Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The decision by both these Authorities went against the petitioner- landlord The material facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner and landlord of House No. 184, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh, which was given on rent to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 375 in the year 1969. The petitioner filed an application under section 13 of the Act claiming eviction of the respondent on the tripple grounds of default, change of user of the premises from residential and requirement of the premises for the bona fide use and occupation of the petitioner. The first ground is no longer in dispute and the parties have contested the matter in reference to the latter two grounds, which on account of the findings of the Authorities below are interlinked. In the nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the house in question was given to the respondent for residential purposes, hut he is using the same for a commercial purpose by running a Homoeopathic Medical College, under the name and style of Premier Homoeopathic Medical College. In regard to his requirement of the house for personal use, the case of the petitioner is that he was in service at Bombay from where he had retired and he wanted to settle down at Chandigarh. He further averred that he did not own any other premises in Chandigarh, nor is he occupying or vacated any such accommodation here. As against this, the stand taken up by the repondent is that he had obtained the premises on rent for running the Homoeopathic Medical College and for medical practice, as such from the very inception of the tenancy, the demised premises falls within the definition of a Scheduled Building which cannot be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. In this manner, he has also denied the allegation of change of user.

(3.) After framing the necessary issues and considering the evidence on the record, the Rent Controller was of the view that the petitioner had failed to prove that the premises in dispute were given to the respondent for a residential purpose. It was further held that the demised premises is a Scheduled Building as defined under section 2(H) of the Act. The conclusions arrived at from this finding are that there was neither any change of user on the part of the tenant, nor could the petitioner- landlord claim eviction of the respondent from the premises on the ground of personal necessity. In addition, it was held that the petitioner had tailed to prove his bona fide need for occupation of the premises. The petitioner- landlord took the matter in appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority: This is how the present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the verdict of the Rent Control Authorities below.