BALDEV SINGH KANG Vs. AVATAR SINGH RANGER

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute which consists of a house bearing No. 1009, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh which was given on rent in the year 1976 on a monthly rent of Rs, 800/-. The ejectment was sought on the ground of bonafide personal necessity-for his person use and occupation. It was stated in the original application dated 8th September, 1978 that the landlord belonged to Ludhiana but he was carrying on his business of manufacture and sale of Ice Cream at new Delhi; that the landlord had five children, out of them three were school going and that his eldest son had finished his Catering and Hotel Management course and would be taking over his business at New Delhi and that the landlord was eager to come and settle down at Chandigarh and to live in the demised premises comfortably and that children of the landlord would be admitted to the schools at Chandigarh. Subsequently the application was amended with the permission of the learned Rent Controller and it was pleaded that the landlord was carrying on his business of Mebrose Ice Cream and Frozen Food Company, New Delhi, in the ground floor of House No. M-67, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, and he was living on the first and second floor of the said premises. Shri Jaswant Rai, the owner and landlord of the said premises obtained an ex-parte eviction order against him on 11th November, 1971 and that the appeal filed by the landlord herein against the said order was dismissed on 21st September, 1979 and further appeal against the said order was dismissed in limine by the Delhi High Court on 21st November, 1979. It was also pleaded that objection application under section 47, C.P.C. filed by him was pending before the Rent Controller on 4th December, 1981 and the same was likely to be dismissed. Thus, there was an imminent threat of his being evicted from the residential as well as from business premises at Delhi. It was also pleaded that his Ice Cream business had been running in huge losses and that it was finally closed on 9th March, 1981. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant on the ground that it was mala fide and a devise to get the rent increased. The other allegations made in the petition were controverted. However, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that it was not a case where the landlord genuinely required the demised premises. The plea of the tenant that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent was negatived. Consequently the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the landlord has been able to establish that he is in an imminent danger of being evicted from the premises at Delhi and that the business concern at Delhi has come to a halt as a result of recurring losses suffered by his concern. Thus the requirement of the landlord was held to be a bonafide one. The pleas taken by the tenant were also negatived by the Appellate Authority. As a result of that finding the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent, contended that it has been amply proved on the record that the requirement was a bonafide one. The landlord has no other house anywhere except the premises in dispute. Since he has suffered heavy losses in his business at Delhi which has also been closed, he wants to settle in his own house at Chandigarh. It was further argued that the position is to be seen at the time of the passing of the order of ejectment by the Rent Controller and the subsequent event which has taken place during the ejectment application could also be taken into consideration. In support of this contention he referred to Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh vs. Badri Parshad Seth, 1963 P.L.R. 452.