JAGJIT SINGH CHEEMA Vs. G.S. SARDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) IT was alleged in the ejectment application that the petitioners are the owners and landlords of Kothi No. 233, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, whereas Respondent No. 1 Shri G.S. Sardana was their tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- excluding water and electricity charges. It was further alleged that the landlords had kept with themselves only one room adjoining the garage. According to the allegations in the ejectment application the said house was let out for residential purpose but the tenant had started running a school therein causing great damage to the building. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the landlords bonafide required the premises for their personal use and occupation. Shri Jagjit Singh Cheema, landlord, was a retired Army Officer and had to start legal practice at Chandigarh, whereas Shri Jaswant Singh Cheema landlord and his mother Smt. Hukam Kaur remained sick and were under treatment of the doctors in the P.G.I. Hospital. The application was resisted, inter-alia, on the ground that the premises had been let out for running a school and had been in use as such since the very inception of tenancy in 1972. The premises in question fall within the definition of 'non-residential building' and, therefore the same could not be got vacated on the ground of requirement for personal use and occupation. The trial Court found that it was Respondent No. 2, Manav Mangal School, which was the tenant of the landlords as alleged in the written statement. It was further found that the purpose of the tenancy was that of running a school. The demised premises were held to be a non-residential building and, therefore, the landlords were not entitled to seek ejectment on the ground of their personal occupation. However, it was further found that the landlords have failed to prove that they bonafide require that the premises for their own use and occupation. With these findings the application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed all these findings and thus maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. However, before the appellate court it was conceded that it was Manav Mangal School, Respondent No. 2. which was the tenant under the landlords and not Respondent No. 1, Shri G.S. Sardana as alleged in the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) HOWEVER , it was contented by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no evidence to prove that the demised premises were residential building though let out for non-residential purposes. I do not find any force in this contention. In para 1 of the ejectment application it was specifically mentioned therein that the petitioners are owners and landlords of House No. 233, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. In the reply filed thereto the tenants never denied that it was not used as a residential building. Instead of using the word 'House' in the written statement he used the word 'Bungalow No. 233-C, Chandigarh. From these pleading it was quite evident that it was a common case of the parties that the rented building was a residential building as it was constructed as residential house. This is also evident from the recital in the lease agreement marked 'A' wherein it was stated that 'the said lessors are the joint owners of the residential House No. 233, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh measuring 6 kanals". Thus the rented building was residential building and was constructed as such. Simply that it was rented out for running a school, it did not cease to be a residential building on that ground alone. The landlords were certainly entitled to seek ejectment of their tenant on the ground of their personal use and occupation.