RITA ADVANI Vs. JASWINDER GREWAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom the order of eviction has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlady who is the owner of the house No. 329, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, filed the ejectment application along with her husband Lt. Col. S.S. Grewal, for the eviction of the tenant inter alia on the grounds that on her request, her husband had let out the premises to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/- per month. She required the premises for her own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of her family members. She was residing at Patiala with her relatives. She wanted to provide educational facilities to her son at Chandigarh. Her husband was going to retire from the Military Service and after his retirement therefrom they wanted to settle at Chandigarh in their own house. Thus, her need of the premises was immediate and bona fide. It was also pleaded that they were not in occupation of any other house in the urban area concerned, nor had they vacated without any sufficient cause since the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act). In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that the eviction petition was barred in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, and also on the basis of the principle of res judicata because Lt. Col. S.S. Grewal (now one of the petitioners) had previously filed the ejectment application which was dismissed as withdrawn on September 24, 1981 on the same cause of action. The eviction petition was also barred in view of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, (hereinafter called the Code). It was further pleaded that the eviction petition was also barred on the principle of constructive res judicata in view of the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code. It was also averred that the ejectment application was mala fide as the applicants were interested in disposing of the house and not in shifting thereto. On trial, the learned Rent Controller negatived all the pleas raised by the tenant. It was found as a fact that it was fully established from the evidence on the record that the premises, in question, were bona fide required by the applicants for their use and occupation. As a result, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the previous ejectment application filed by Lt. Col. S.S. Grewal, the husband of the landlady, was dismissed as withdrawn on September 24, 1981, whereas the present ejectment application was filed by the applicants on October 6, 1981. According to the learned counsel, there was no change of circumstances during this short period of twelve days, nor any such event was alleged in the ejectment application. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the present ejectment application was barred. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon Kashmiri Lal v. Kartar Singh, 1980 2 RCR(Rent) 347. It was also contended that there was no bona fide requirement of the applicants to occupy the premises. Even the date of retirement of Lt. Col. S.S. Grewal, one of the applicants, was not given in the ejectment application. As regards the other applicant, Mrs. Jaswinder Grewal, she was living at Patiala.