SIRI CHAND Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Savitri Devi respondent filed a petition for the eviction of Shri Chand petitioner and Ram Karan respondent (his name has since been scored off vide order, dated January 24, 1974. passed by Harbans Singh, C.J , as he then was) on the ground of non-payment of rent, subletting and requirement for personal use of residential premises in dispute which are partly used for non-residential purposes. In the appeal preferred by the tenant-petitioner against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller it was held by Shri Mohan Lal Jain, the then appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949). In his order, dated March 7, 1973, that the tenancy of Shri Chand petitioner was joint with Ram Karan respondent, and, therefore, eviction could not be allowed on the ground of sub-letting, but that the plea of the landlord-respondent for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use had not been disputed before him. He also affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller to the effect that payment of rent, interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller in the earlier proceedings did not ensure for the benefit of the tenant in the present petition. Whatever may be the validity of the finding relating to the ground of non-payment of rent, the fact remains that the order for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord-respondent which had been found against the petitioner by the Rent Controller was not even questioned before the Appellate Authority, and the said ground of eviction was even otherwise upheld by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner is that the fact of the tenancy of the peritioner and of Ram Karan respondent having been found to be joint has not been noticed or dealt with by the Appellate Authority. That has no effect. The only other argument advanced by Mr. N.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the ground of personal requirement was not proved on the record of this case. I am unable to entertain this argument for the pimple reason that the finding of the Rent Controller on that issue was not even questioned before the Appellate Authority as has been expressly stated in the order of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) I, therefore, find no force in this petition, and have no hesitation in dismissing the same. Mr. Jain requests that his client may be allowed some time to vacate the premises. I allow the petitioner time till December 31, 1974, to vacate the premises on the condition that he pays to the landlord-respondent or deposits in the executing Court all arrears of rent within three weeks from today, and also pays to the landlord, or deposits in the executing Court the rent for the subsequent months within 15 days of the expiry of the month for which rent has to be paid. The payment of rent for the period allowed by me would not in any manner amount to renewal or revival of the tenancy which has already been terminated and has corns to an end. Non-payment or non-desposit of rent or non-payment of subsequent rent in accordance with the above-mentioned directions shall entitle the landlord-respondent to execute the order for eviction forthwith.