CAPTAIN B. S. MADHOK Vs. MOHINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE premises in dispute is a part of a Kothi which has been rented out to the tenant Mohinder Nath vide rent note Exhibit A-1 dated February 5, 1970, on a monthly rent of Rs. 140/- which rent was later on reduced to Rs. 115/- per month. A part of the said Kothi is in occupation of the landlord himself The ejectment application was filed on April 20, 1981. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and for bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that the landlord requires the premises for his personal use. He is presently occupying 3 Kasturba Nagar, Jullunder Cantt, for which notice for vacating the same has been issued. The premises in dispute are situate at Pathankot which is a residential building and he requires the same for his personal use and he has not vacated any other residential building in the urban area concerned. At present he is in occupation of one room. It may be called a store which is insufficient for his needs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, these allegations were denied. It was pleaded that the premises in dispute is not a residential building, but a commercial one. The tenant has taken the premises in dispute for commercial purposes and not for residential purpose and, therefore, he was not liable to ejectment on the ground or bonafide requirement. Moreover, there is sufficient accomodation in his possession and has vacant space for raising new construction. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord does not require the premises in dispute for his personal necessity. Further, it was found that the tenant has failed to prove that the premises were taken on rent for commercial purpose. However eviction order was passed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller whereas the other findings were maintained. Consequently, eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant evidence on the record, it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the building in dispute was a residential one and from the rent note Exhibit A.I dated February 5, 1970 it could not be said that it was let out for a non-residential purpose. As a matter of fact, no purpose is mentioned in the rent-note though it is admitted that it is a residential building. Thus, it has been rightly held by the authorities below that the building was not let our for non residential purpose. In the written statement, the defendant himself pleaded that there is a vacant space outside the building and the landlord may construct the same, if so desired. His bonafide requirement as such for occupying the premises in dispute was never denied. The main contest was that the building was let out for non-residential purpose. It is not denied that the landlord does not own any other house in the urban area concerned or anywhere else except the building in dispute At present be was living at Jullundur in a rented premises. His desire to shift to his native place at Pathankot after his retirement seems to be most bonafide. There is nothing on the record to suggest that his requirement was not bonafide to occupy his own building. Thus the approach of the authorities below in this behalf is wrong illegal and misconceived. The landlord entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of his personal requirement after retirement from the Military in the year 1969. Of course, the Premises were let out in the year 1970 because at that time he was living in Jullundur. When notice was issued qua the said premises then he filed the ejectment application seeking the ejectment of his tenant. As regards the non payment of rent, since it has been, found as a fact on the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, that the tenant was not in arrears, the same could not be interferred with.