SHANKAR LAL Vs. BHAGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a tenant's petition against whom ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller but the eviction order has been passed in appeal.

(2.) ORIGINALLY , one Assa Ram was the owner of the building in dispute. Vide registered sale deed dated 27th July, 1978, he sold the same to the present landladies Mst. Bhago and Sugran who were also the tenants on the first floor of the same building earlier. After the purchase, Shankar Lal became their tenant who was originally inducted by Assa Ram. The ejectment of the tenant was sought primarily on the ground that the landladies bonafide required the premises for their use and occupation. It was pleaded that they did not have sufficient accommodation for their residence and cattle and that they had to hire a room for their cattle from one Mohan Lal in the same locality. It was also pleaded that the landladies have not occupied or vacated any other house in the urban area concerned since the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The tenant controverted the said pleas and pleaded that the building in question was a scheduled building and could not be got vacated for personal use and occupation. It was alleged that the tenant was a registered medical practitioner and was doing his business in the premises in question.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the first instance the landladies claimed excessive rent, viz. at the rate of Rs. 40/- p.m. whereas the rent was Rs. 6/- p.m. Thus, argued the learned counsel that on that ground alone, the ejectment application was liable to be dismissed as the landladies did not come to the Court with clean hands. It was next contended that the accommodation already in possession of the landladies is more than sufficient for their needs since both of them were unmarried and, therefore, the finding of the learned Rent Controller in this behalf was correct. According to the learned counsel, the approach of the Appellate Authority, in this behalf was wrong and illegal. It was further contended that the ejectment could not be sought on the ground that the buffaloes were to be kept therein for selling milk.