SHEILA SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The building, in dispute, is house No. 337, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. The landlady Sheila Shamsher Singh purchased the same on Aug. 8, 1980, vide registered sale deed, Exhibit P. 1, for a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/-. At that time the father of respondent No. 1 i.e. late Shri Banwari Lal Nagpal was a tenant therein. On his death, respondent No. 1 became a tenant under the previous owner and landlord. On its purchase by the landlady, he became her tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 480/-, which was being paid earlier. His ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that she bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation. It was pleaded that the demised premises were required by her for her own use and occupation and that of her husband Kanwar Shamsher Singh, retired Inspector General of Police, Punjab, whose eyes were very badly affected by glaucoma and cataract. They were living at Katrain (Kulu Valley) Himachal Pradesh and had to come to Chandigarh off and on for treatment and check up in the P. G. I. In view of the eye disease of her husband, their requirement was most paramount and pressing as they wanted to live in comfort at Chandigarh. It was also stated that she had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, nor they were occupying any other building in the urban area concerned. In the written statement, these allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that the husband of the landlady was an Inspector General of Police. After his retirement he had settled permanently at Katrain (Kulu Valley), Himachal Pradesh. The landlady and her husband had acquired many properties at Chandigarh and re-sold the same after getting heavy gains. The house, in dispute, was purchased at a low price and the landlady wanted to sell it at a fancy price. With that motive, she had filed this petition. The other allegations made in the eviction petition were also controverted. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlady did not bona fide require the house, in dispute. The other, contentions raised on her behalf were also negatived. Consequently, the eviction application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that from the evidence on the record, it has been amply proved that the requirement of the landlady and her husband was most bona fide and that the approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wrong, illegal and misconceived. According to the learned counsel, the transfers of the properties made by the landlady or her husband were prior to the enforcement of the afore-mentioned Act in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and, therefore, the same were of no consequence so far as the present eviction petition was concerned. Besides, the circumstances under which the properties were previously sold by the landlady and her husband have been fully explained. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the landlady and her husband did not own or occupy any other residential building in the urban area concerned, nor have they vacated any after the commencement of the above-mentioned Act, without reasonable cause and, therefore, the whole approach of the authorities below being wrong, the findings arrived at by them are vitiated.