FAQIR CHAND Vs. RAM KALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FAQIR Chand petitioner is occupying a portion of house No. 4497 situated in Bazaza Mohalla/shivala Mohalla, Ambala Cant, as a statutory tenant, on payment of rent at the date of Rs. 6. 50 per month under the respondent, who filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement for her own personal use and occupation. The petition was contested by the petitioner on various grounds. As arrears of rent were duly tendered, the ground of default in payment of rent was abandoned by the respondent. The only issue that survived, for decision was the bona fide personal requirement of the landlady. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller accepted the claim of the landlady and ordered ejectment of the petitioner vide his order dated 30th Jan. , 1980.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved from the order of eviction the tenant preferred an appeal. The learned appellate Authority did not find any merit in the appeal was dismissed the same.

(3.) STILL dissatisfied, the present petition has been filed by the tenant. Initially, the petition came up for hearing before M. R. Sharma J. , on 14th Jan. , 1981, when a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of a single Bench judgment of this Court in Tara Chand Chandani v. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, 1980 Cur LJ (Civ) 231 : (AIR 1980 Punj and Har 302), that it was not open for a landlord to convert a residential building into a non-residential building and that as the landlady respondent after getting a portion of the building vacated from another tenant, had converted that portion into a tea-shop and dry-cleaning shop, the ejectment of the petitioner could not be ordered from the premises in dispute even if personal necessity of the landlady was provided. Finding some merit in the contention, notice of the motion, the respondent put in appearance. When the matter was heard by the learned Judge, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chattar Sain v. M/s. Jamboo Parshad, 1965 Cur LJ 143, was cited for the proposition that with regard to residential building which was not occupied by a tenant, no permission was required by the owner for converting its user to non-residential building. Finding a conflict between the judgments of Tara Chandani's case (supra) and Chattar Sain's case (supra) the learned Judge admitted the petition to a hearing by a Division Bench. It is in these circumstances that the matter but been placed before us for decision.