CHARANJIT LAL AND ORS. Vs. RADHA KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is by the tenants who have been ordered to be evicted by the appellate court but was successful in fending off the threat of eviction at the trial court. The ground that prevailed with the appellate court was the personal necessity of the landlady to start a business at the ground floor of the building, she being the owner of the first floor and the barsati portion as well.

(2.) THE Rent Controller, who dismissed the petition, was unconvinced that there was any bonafides on the part of the landlady, considering the fact that she had rented out the portion of the building at the first floor in April 1998 for monthly rent of Rs. 7300/ - for a jewellery business and yet another portion of the building at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/ -. The Rent Controller observed that there was no bonafides on her part if she was letting out the portion of the building for a commercial purpose and would seek for ejectment of the portion of the property at the ground floor. The contention was if there was any bonafide need she would have started the business herself at the first floor.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlady states that there was no scope for the landlady to make an averment of the fact that there was any portion of the property in her possession for commercial purpose at the time when the petition was filed, in view of the fact that the particular business which her husband was carrying out at the first floor could not be continued when the Chandigarh Administration had taken action for resumption on the ground of misuse of residential portion for a non -residential purpose. She had to, therefore, give up that business and only later when the Chandigarh Administration had changed the policy to allow for the residential portion in SCF complex at Sector 23 to be used also for the commercial purpose, the building that fell vacant could be put to use for any commercial purpose. The subsequent policy change of the Chandigarh Administration alone made possible the letting for a jewellery business at the first floor. Her own business could not have been started there, for the access to the first floor portion was through the back portion of the building. The car park and access to the public were from the front portion and the tenant had also admitted in his own evidence that there was no retail shop or allied business in Sector 23 at the first floor. I heard the Senior Counsel who read to me the reasoning adopted by the lower appellate authority while reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller. He had given elaborative reasoning for taking the decision that he did, that the landlady would be the best judge to decide on the suitability of the property and the tenant cannot dictate his terms.