GURDEEP KAUR Vs. M.M. ABUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlady's petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.

(2.) The premises, in dispute, are a residential house hearing No. 527. Sector 18-B, Chandigarh. The landlady sought the ejectment of the tenant therefrom primarily on the ground that she bona fide required the same for her own use and occupation. It was pleaded that she had been residing with her husband and two sons-both students-on the first floor of house No. 1229, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh which consisted of three rooms including the drawing-cum-dining, a kitchen and bath rooms. There was no garage facility available and as such the car of her husband who was a Superintending Engineer at the time of the filing of the ejectment application (now a chief Engineer) had to be parked outside the said house which was quite unsafe. Thus, it was pleaded that the accommodation in their possession was insufficient to meet the requirements of the family. The house, in dispute, was purchased by her on February 17, 1979, which consisted of a drawing-cum-dining room, three bed rooms with attached baths, kitchen, a garage and a room for the servant including a bath room. The said house was purchased by her for her personal necessity and that of her family. The tenant was inducted in the premises, in dispute, by the previous owner thereof on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/-. It was also stated that the landlady of house No. 1229, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, who is living on the ground floor thereof was pressing hard for the vacation of the upper floor in occupation of the land- lady as she required the same for her own use and occupation. It was also pleaded that the landlady had not vacated any such house after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, without any sufficient cause in the urban area concerned. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was admitted that the landlady had purchased the house, in dispute, but it was denied that she had purchased the said house for her personal use. According to him, the landlady was living at Chandigarh while her husband was posted at Patiala and that she had sufficient accommodation at Chandigarh in her own right and, therefore, the ground of personal necessity was not available to her. It was also pleaded that her husband as a Government Officer was entitled to the allotment of the accommodation. The landlady and her husband had been regularly dealing in the sale and purchase of properties at Chandigarh with a view to making capital gains. They purchased house No. 118, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh in the year 1973 and sold the same in 1978 for a higher price. They purchased the, house, in dispute, in the year 1979. Thus, according to the tenant, the requirement of the landlady was not bona fide. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlady, the allegations made in the ejectment application were reiterated and the ones made in the written statement were controverted. It was denied that she or her husband regularly dealt in the sale and purchase of properties in Chandigarh. It was, however, admitted that her husband had purchased house No. 118 Sector 18-A, Chandigarh in a public auction, but on his transfer to Patiala, it had become difficult for him to manage and control the said house. So, it was sold, he was again transferred to Chandigarh. Therefore, she had purchased the house, in question, for her personal use and occupation. It was further pleaded that the landlady of house No. 1229, Sector 8-C, where she was residing for the time being, had also filed an ejectment application against her. The learned Rent Controller found that the house, in dispute, was required by the landlady for her bona fide use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed in her favour. In appeal. the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and found that the landlady had failed to prove her bona fide requirement of the house, in dispute. As a result, the eviction order passed in her favour by the Rent Controller was set aside and her eviction petition was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, she has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlady required the demised premises for her own use and occupation has been reversed by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures. According to the learned counsel, the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration certain facts which were not at all relevant and were otherwise wrong in negativing the said finding of the Rent Controller. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the finding arrived at by the Appellate Authority was vitiated. The requirement of the landlady was most bona fide.