KESAR DASS Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Revision Petition, Kesar Dass petitioner-landlord seeks to impugn the decision of two Rent Control Authorities in an application for ejectment filed by the petitioner for the eviction of the respondents on the ground of bonafide personal need.

(2.) AS per Sale Deed dated December 13, 1972, the petitioner purchased House No. 3880 Abkari Road, Kacha Bazar, Ambala Cantt. from the previous owner for the purpose of their personal residence. An application under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was filed by the petitioner claiming eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of the bonafide personal requirement of the premises in question. The petition was resisted by the tenant on the sole ground that the premises were never let out to him, nor had they been used for the purpose of residence and that he had been doing dairy business in the same. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence placed on the record, dismissed the ejectment application. The petitioner-landlord filed an appeal which also met the same fate at the hands of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) THE Authorities below have misconstrued the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner to show that the respondent along with his mother was residing in the house in dispute as they had been registered as voters with the address of the demised premises. Copies of the entries of the House Tax Assessment Register were also produced with a view to show that the respondent was residing in the said house. These entries relate to the period 1963 to 1966. This being so, the mere fact that the respondent un-authorisedly started using the premises for a non-residential purpose, i.e, for manufacture of booth polish, cannot clothe him with the benefit of his own violation. In view of these circumstances, the findings of the Authorities below on the only issue debated throughout, i.e. Issue No. 2 are reversed and it is held that the demised premises had been leased to the respondent for a residential purpose. The admitted fact that the respondent was using the same for a non-residential purpose makes him liable for eviction. The Revision petition is accepted. The decision of the two Rent Control Authorities below are reversed. The application filed by the petitioner for the eviction of the respondent is allowed and the respondent is ordered to be evicted from the premises. The respondent is, however, permitted to vacate the premises in dispute within one month from today.