RAJINDER KAUR SONI Vs. PUSHPINDER KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller, but dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE demised premises are a residential building, i.e. house No. 1076, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh. They were rented out to the tenant vide rent note dated February 27, 1974, for a period of six months on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the landlady bonafide required the same for her own use and occupation, as she was not residing in her own right but on sufferance, in house No. 1040, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, because the said house belonged and was owned by her brother Gurdev Singh Bhalla (who died during the pendency of the appeal). According to her, her brother Gurdev Singh Bhalla had been pressing her for some time and wanted her to vacate the said house. The family of the landlady consisted, besided herself, of her daughter and her husband who was serving and posted somewhere in the border area near Tibet. She could not live with her husband there. Under the circumstances, she had to live at Chandigarh to look after her daughter who was an M.A. student. It was further pleaded that she had no other place to live at Chandigarh except the demised premises. It was also averred that she had not vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act), nor was she occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned. In the written statement, the tenant admitted the factum of the tenancy. According to him, before he occupied the demised premises as a tenant, they were in occupation of another tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. According to him, the landlady get them vacated from him on the pretext that she needed the same for her own use and occupation. It was further pleaded by him that the ejectment application had been made by her with the motive of enhancing the rent for which she had been pressing him on a number of occasions. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlady, the allegations made in the written statement were controverted and these made in the ejectment application were reiterated. Thus, the only controversy between the parties was whether the landlady required the building, in question, for her own bonafide requirement or not. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlady to occupy the premises, in question, was most bonafide since, then, she was putting up in the house owned by her brother, with his permission. As a result, the eviction application was allowed and the ejectment order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and consequently, dismissed the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that the landlady had failed to plead and prove the ingredients of section 13(3)(a)(i) (c) of the Act, i.e., she had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the Act was made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh in November, 1972, whereas the tenant had occupied the premises, in dispute, in the year 1974. Under the circumstances, it will be deemed that the said premises were available to her in the year 1974, for her occupation, but she failed to occupy the same without any sufficient cause which under the law would mean that she had vacated such a building without sufficient cause.