RAJESWARI DEVI Vs. CHANDER SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the Authorities below.

(2.) THE landlady sought the ejectment of her tenant from the two rooms on the first floor of the residential building consisting of 10 rooms. She purchased the house in dispute in the year 1976. The ejectment application was filed on 2nd November, 1979, inter alia on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent form 1st December, 1978 to 30th November, 1979 together with House Tax amounting to Rs. 78.62 and that the landlady bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant. It was pleaded that the rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month was only payable, which included the House Tax as well. As regards the bonafide requirement, it is pleaded that the accommodation in possession of the landlady was sufficient and thus she did not bonafide require the premises for her own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that there was no evidence on the record for warranting a conclusion that the tenant had to pay House Tax over and above the rent of Rs. 15/- per month. Thus it was held that the rate of rent of the house in dispute was Rs. 15/- per month including the House Tax. On the question of arrears of rent the learned Rent Controller held that since on the first date of hearing arrears of rent were tendered, the tenant was not liable to be ejected on that ground. On the question of bonafide requirement, the learned Rent Controller held that the landlady has failed to prove by any cogent and convincing evidence that she bonafide required the house in dispute for her personal use and occupation. The other grounds were also negatived. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the learned Rent Controller and thus maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the pleadings of the parties in this case as well as in the earlier proceedings in the Civil Court it had been amply proved that the House Tax was to be paid separately over and above the rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. After going through the pleadings and the documents, I do not find any force in this contention. The tenant nowhere admitted that he was liable to pay House Tax over and above the rent of Rs. 15/- per month. His case throughout has been that a sum of Rs. 15/- included the House Tax as well. Thus it has been rightly held by both the Authorities below that a sum of Rs. 15/-, which was being paid as rent, included the House Tax also.