JAGJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR MANOCHA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE demised premises consist of one room, a kitchen, latrine and bath room and the back courtyard on the ground floor of house No. 5, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh. The same were let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 350 on March 18, 1973. The landlord filed the ejectment application for the eviction of the tenant from the said premises on January 3, 1979, primarily on the grounds of non-payment of the arrears of rent and his bonafide requirement thereof for his own use and occupation. Later on, on May 30, 1981, it was amended and it was pleaded that there had been change of user of the premises also as the same were let out for residential purposes but were being used for commercial purposes. Even the proceedings under Section 4 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act), were taken during the pendency of the said eviction proceeding and the building was again resumed in the year 1980. The order, as evidenced by endorsement dated July 19, 1980, Exhibit A.5, was passed in that behalf. However, on appeal filed on behalf of the landlord, the building was restored vide order dated May 18, 1981, Exhibit A.6, on certain conditions. It was also pleaded that earlier also in the year 1977, the building was resumed under the Act because of the misuse thereof as the site thereto was transferred to the landlord for residential purposes whereas the tenants in the building thereon were misusing the same by putting it to commercial use. However, the said presumption order was set aside in appeal in December, 1978, and the building was restored on the condition that it will no more be misused by the tenants. Undertaking in that behalf was given by the tenants (both the tenants on the ground floor including the present tenant) that they will use the building only for residential purposes for which it was transferred to the landlord owner. According to the landlord, in spite of that undertaking given in December, 1978, the demised premises were being used for commercial purposes. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, these allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that the building was let out originally for commercial purposes, but since it was resumed by the Estate Officer and was re-occupied by the tenants after the vacating of the resumption order, the same was being used for residential purposes only. The averments as to the bonafide personal requirement of the landlord were also denied. The learned Rent Controller found that there was overwhelming evidence from which it could be safely concluded that the demised premises were being used by the tenant for the purpose of running cane furniture business in the name and style of M/s Singapore Cane and Bamboo Handicraft, Chandigarh. Since the disputed building was a residential one the tenant was not entitled to change the user thereof and accordingly, he was liable to be ejected therefrom. The plea of bonafide personal necessity raised on behalf of the landlord was negatived. Ultimately, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the only finding of the Rent Controller under issue No. 2, relating to the change of user of the demised premises was contested. The learned Appellate Authority found that the evidence produced by the landlord did not establish the change of user as alleged by him. Consequently, the finding of the Rent Controller in that behalf was set aside and the eviction application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court. During the pendency of this revision petition, he has moved two civil miscellaneous applications, viz., Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3168-CII of 1985, which was filed for bringing on record the subsequent events, and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3169-CII of 1985 under Order 20VI rule 9 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a local Commissioner, to inspect the building, in dispute, as well as house No.1575-Ist floor, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh. In Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3169-CII of 1985, which came up for motion hearing on July 12, 1985, Shri Sunil Kumar Gour, Advocate, was appointed as a local Commissioner to visit, that day, the premises, in dispute, i.e., ground floor of house No. 5, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, and to report the present condition regarding occupation thereof. The said order was passed ex parte though the notice vide said order was given of both the applications to the counsel opposite, for July 15, 1985. The local Commissioner filed the report dated July 12, 1985, in this Court, in which it was stated that when he reached, the house was locked. It was opened by Shri S.D. Manocha, father of Vijay Kumar Manocha, the tenant, who reached there after the arrival of the local Commissioner. According to the said report, nobody was living in the demised premises and that the same were lying vacant.

(3.) THE allegations made in the application for bringing on record the subsequent events have been controverted primarily on the ground that the same were irrelevant for the purposes of the present petition. The respondent has also objected to the appointment of the local Commissioner and to the report submitted by him.