CHAND TARI Vs. CHINTA HARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Chand Tari petitioner owns a residential house in Bill Gali, Sonepat in which a small portion consisting of one room and one kitchen on the first floor and one Barsati on the second floor, is in occupation of the respondent as a tenant. The petitioner filed ejectment application against the respondent in January, 1979 on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for 3 years and house tax and personal requirement. The arrears of rent was tendered. The respondent denied that the petitioner required the premises bonafide for her personal use. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 21.2.1981, held that the tender of arrears of rent made by the respondent was valid and that the petitioner did not bonafide require the premises for her own occupation. The petitioner assailed the order of the Rent Controller in appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 4.8.1981. It is against this order that the present revision petition is directed.

(2.) In Civil Revision No. 217 of 1983, Smt. Chand Tari v. Sikandar, 1985 2 RCR(Rent) 541 decided to dated which relates to another portion of the same house, it has been held that Smt. Chand Tari petitioner does not bonafide require the premises for her own use. Her plea that her son Muni Lal with whom she is residing at Delhi wants to shift to Sonepat, has been repelled. The point relating to the bonafide requirement, by the petitioner of the premises in occupation of the respondent, stands covered by the ratio of the decision in Civil Revision No. 217 of 1983.

(3.) The respondent tendered the arrears of rent for 3 years (16.1.1976 to 15.1.1979) at the rate of Rs. 15 per mensem, apart from Rs. 25 as costs and Rs. 68 as interest. The rent tendered was accepted under protest. The petitioner made claim of arrears of rent for a period of 3 years which was tendered by the respondent. The petitioner has failed to prove that she is entitled to house tax as well from the respondent. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority has rightly held that the tender of arrears of rent made by the respondent is valid and not short.