K.K. SUD Vs. IESH RIKHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but allowed in appeal.

(2.) THE demised premises are a residential house, No. 76, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh. Professor K.K. Sood, is the tenant in the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 715/-. The house, in question, is owned by the landlord Lt. Col. Iesh Rekhy and his brother. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the allegations that he was an Army Officer posted in the field area and was serving in special conditions as per the certificate obtained by him from the Army authorities. He required the demised premises for his, wife and children as well as for his parents who were living at Jammu and wanted to shift to Chandigarh in the demised premises. The allegations of subletting thereof were also made. The tenant controverted the said allegation and pleaded that the petition was filed just to increase the rate of rent and that the landlord did not require the premises, nor was he serving in any special conditions. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was also denied. The learned Rent controller found that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, on the question of bonafide requirement, the Rent Controller found that the said ground was not available to the landlord since two previous occasions he had increased the rate of rent of the premises, in question. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord for the present premises could not be looked with any suspicion. It was further found that the landlord was serving in special conditions and, thus, he was entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant if he wanted the premises for the use and occupation of his family which he wanted to shift to the premises, in dispute. An objection was also raised before the Appellate Authority that the landlord had failed to include the barsati portion of the premises, while seeking the eviction of the tenant therefrom, in the eviction petition. According to the tenant, the landlord had only claimed his ejectment from the ground floor of the premises. however, the Appellate Authority found that the eviction application must be taken for the entire premises which happened to be in possession of the tenant. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THERE is no force in this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner Of course, in the ejectment application, the tenant's eviction was sought from the ground floor which was rented out to him initially. However, it has been found as a fact that the tenant is in occupation of the ground floor as well as the barsati on the first floor. Thus, the entire building is in occupation of the tenant. The landlord has sought his ejectment from the entire building, as found by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the question of his splitting up the tenancy as such did not arise and the above-said decisions of this Court have no applicability to the facts of the present case.