MOHAR SINGH Vs. HARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the landlords' petition, whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below. Petitioner Ram Singh is the owner of house in dispute, i.e. House No. 3186 Sector 27-D, Chandigarh. Whereas petitioner Mohan Singh is his son and the special attorney.

(2.) IN the year 1971 the ground floor of the said house was given on rent to the tenant Mohar Singh Ahuja, now deceased and represented by Harinder Singh and others. According to the landlord the monthly rent was Rs. 230/- and the water and electricity charges were separate. The present application for ejectment was filed on May 6, 1979, inter-alia on the ground that the tenant has failed to make the payment of arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1976 at the rate of Rs. 230/- per mensem and that the landlord bonafide required the premises for their own use and occupation. It was alleged that the petitioners intended to live on the ground floor with their family. It was also pleaded that they were not occupying any other residential building within the urban area of Chandigarh, nor have vacated any such building without sufficient cause. The application was contested inter alia on the ground that the rent of the demised premises was Rs. 160/- per mensem and that the entire rent for the period in question stood paid. It was also pleaded that the petitioner No. 1, Mohar Singh has been receiving the rent, but never, issued any receipts and further that he had been pressing for enhancement of the rent, which the tenant failed to oblige. As regards the personal requirement, it was pleaded that the family of the petitioner Mohar Singh has permanently settle at Ambala for the last several years and, therefore, their ground of bonafide need for either of the petitioners was not available to them. On trial the learned Rent Controller found that the rate of rent was Rs. 160/- per mensem and not Rs. 230 as alleged by the landlords. It was further found that the rent upto the end of March, 1979 stood paid. The tenant tendered the rent for April, 1979, alongwith the interest and costs of the petitioner and therefore, the ground of ejectment on account of non-payment of arrears of rent was negatived.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, contended that from the evidence on the record, the bonafide requirement of the landlords have been duly proved. The finding of the authorities below in this behalf were wrong and illegal and based on misreading of the evidence, particularly when it has been observed by the Appellate Authority that the first floor of the building in dispute was rented out during the pendency of these proceedings. According to the learned counsel the earlier tenants had already vacated that portion and it was rented out before the ejectment application was filed and, therefore, this observation being wrong, the finding arrived at is vitiated. He also challenged the findings as regards the rate of rent and its non-payment.