GULRAJ SINGH GREWAL Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order was passed in appeal.

(2.) THE demised properly comprises of a residential house which was rented to the tenant Gulraj Singh in early 1969 by Dr. Harbans Singh at rate of Rs. 800/- per month. The rent note is dated 15th May, 1969. On 7th December, 1976, Dr. Harbans Singh gifted one half share of the property to his son, Dr. Ravinder Singh. Thus, both the landlords, that is, the father and the son filed ejectment application against their tenant inter alia on the ground that they bonafide require the house for their residential purpose and secondly, there was a change of user by the tenant to a purpose other than the one for which it was let out as he had shifted his office to the building after it was let out to him. The ejectment application was contested on the ground that the demised premises was a scheduled building, being used partially for his office and partially for his residence with the result the plea of personal requirement of the demised premises was not open to the landlords. However, it was also denied that the landlords required the building for their own use. It was admitted that the office of the tenant as a Consulting Engineer was there in one room on the ground floor and also in one room on the first floor of the building. The plea of fight taken by the landlord was denied.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has been using premises as such that is, for his residence as well as for his office from the very inception of the tenancy, and, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, there was no question of changing the user. According to the learned counsel, even though in the rent note, Exhibit A.3, the premises are stated to have been let out for residential purposes but that will not make any difference. In support of his contention, he referred to Rajinder Kumar v. Rajwant Rai Sood and others (1984)(1) R.C.R. 466) 1984 Current Law Journal 207; Paramjit Singh and others v. Bawa Gurdas Ram (dead) and others; 1979 (1) R.C.R. 24, (1979)(1) Rent Law Reporter 165); and Hira Lal v. Hari Kirpa Ram, 1977(2) R.C.R. 352 : 1977(2) Rent Law Reporter 323. It was also contended that the requirement of the landlord, Dr. Ravinder Singh, was also not bonafide. The whole purpose was to enhance the rent.