SHIV LAL Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but was allowed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlady Shrimati Kanta Devi, who had purchased the house, in dispute, from its original owner, filed the ejectment application against the tenant inter alia on the grounds that, -(i) the house, in question, was given to Shiv Lal for the purpose of his residence, but he had converted it into a commercial premises and had, thus, changed its user, (ii) the said Shiv Lal had constructed his own house, No. 45, Kasturba Colony, Ambala Cantt, and was occupying the same. The said house was sufficient to meet his requirement and, (iii) the landlady required the premises, in dispute, for her own use and occupation because she had three school going children and the existing accommodation with her in that very building was not sufficient to meet her expanding need. The landlady also pleaded that she had no other residential house in the urban area concerned, nor had she vacated any without any sufficient cause after the coming into force of the rent law. The demised premises consist of four rooms in the said residential building. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the premises, in question, were a shop and that the same were taken on rent for commercial purposes. He had been carrying on the business of book binding therein form the very inception of the tenancy and was also residing in a part thereof. The grounds of ejectment set up by the landlady were also controverted. However, it was admitted that Shiv Lal tenant, had constructed his own house, No. 45 Kasturba Colony, Ambala Cantt, but the same was not sufficient to accommodate his family and that of Bhagwan Dass, his third brother. It was conceded that Shiv Lal, tenant had shifted to the said house, but was asserted that he daily came to the premises, in question, to do the business therein along with his brother Dilbag Rai, respondent. Under the circumstances, it was pleaded that the building, in question, being a non-residential one could not be got vacated by the landlady on the ground of personal necessity. On trial, the learned Rent Controller controverted all the pleas taken by the landlady in the ejectment application and came to the conclusion that the premises, in question, were let out for commercial purposes and that though in the two rooms out of the four rooms let out tenant was also residing yet the premises were non-residential for the purposes of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. If the building was non-residential, then the landlady was not entitled to eject the tenants on the ground of personal necessity. In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller. It found that it was admitted by the tenant that a part of the demised premises was being used to run Shiv Book Binding House and further that Puneet Parkashan was also housed in those premises. Thus, according to the Appellate Authority, the tenant had certainly changed the user of a part of the building from residential to non-residential, which was in contravention of section 11 of the above-said Act. As regards the ground that the tenant Shiv Lal had constructed his house as admitted by him, it was found that the said house was sufficient to meet his requirement and that on that ground also, he was liable to be ejected from the demised premises. So far as the bonafide requirement of the landlady was concerned, it was found as a fact that there was an element of need in her bonafide requirement. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed against the respondents. Dissatisfied with the same, they have filed this revision petition in this Court. During the pendency of the revision petition. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 5827-CII of 1983, under Order 41 rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, for production of the additional evidence was also filed. Notice thereof was given to the landlady and it was ordered to be heard with the main case.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.