VAID AMAR NATH AGGARWAL Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application against the tenant-respondent Ram Chander has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) BISHAN Dayal was the owner and landlord of House No. 129/5A, situate in Bazar No. 1, Ferozpur Cantt. The petitioner landlord Vaid Amar Nath Aggarwal purchased the said house for consideration of Rs. 11,000 on 30th November, 1977. The tenant was inducted by the previous owner Bishan Dayal in a room of the said house at monthly rate of rent Rs. 10 plus house tax and water-tax. The landlord filed the present application on 13th June, 1979 for the ejectment of his tenant, inter alia, on the ground that he bonafide required that said room for his own use and occupation. It was further pleaded that he was residing in the house owned by his father as a licensee. Out of the house that was purchased by him, he was in possession of only one room and a store whereas the remaining portion was in occupation of the tenant. Thus, the present accommodation was sufficient for his needs. The application was contested inter alia on the ground that the room was let out to the tenant to be used as a godown by Bishan Dayal and, thus, it was a non-residential building and, therefore, the tenant could not be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity. However, it was pleaded that the landlord was in occupation of the entire house except the room in question and, therefore, the accommodation with him was sufficient for his needs. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the landlord bonafide required the premises in dispute for his personal use and occupation. It was further found that the room in question was a non-residential building as it was let out as a godown and so the ground of personal requirement was not available to the landlord. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus, maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant relied on Rattan Lal v. Smt. Laxmi, 1970 RCR 923 : 1971 PLR 86. According to the learned counsel, the room in question was being used as a godown which will be deemed to be let out for the purpose of trade and, thus, the demised premises were a non-residential building.