SMT. SURJIT KAUR Vs. DR. VINOD KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision petitions Nos. 2227 and 2787 of 1984, as the questions involved are common in both the cases.

(2.) Iqbal Singh, deceased, was the owner of house No. 16, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh, which is constructed on a ten marla plot. Once portion thereof was rented out to Dr. Vinod Kumar Arora vide agreement to lease, dated March 24, 1981, at a monthly rent of Rs. 650/- whereas the other portion thereof was rented out to Kuldip Singh, tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- vide rent note dated May 27, 1977. The said Iqbal Singh died in the year 1980. His widow Surjit Kaur filed two separate ejectment applications against the above said two tenants for their eviction from the premises inter alia on the grounds that there was a change of user thereof and that she required the premises bonafide for her own use and occupation as the present accommodation in her occupation was insufficient as presently, she was living with one of her sons in a very limited Government accommodation which was insufficient for her needs. She had three sons and one young daughter of marriageable age for whom separate and suitable accommodation was urgently required. Civil Revision Petition No. 2227 of 1984 arises out of the ejectment application filed against Dr. Vinod Kumar Arora whereas Civil Revision Petition No. 2787 of 1984 arises out of the ejectment application filed against Kuldip Singh. The learned Rent Controller passed the eviction order against Kuldip Singh, tenant, on the ground that there was change of user as the premises were let out for residential purposes whereas he had installed a photostat machine therein. That order was maintained in appeal. Aggrieved against the same he has filed the above-mentioned revision petition. Eviction application against Vinod Kumar Arora was dismissed by both the authorities below as both the pleas raised against him by the landlady were negatived. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2227 of 1984. In the case of Dr. Vinod Kumar Arora, I have gone through the evidence on the record. According to the Appellate Authority, the accommodation in occupation of the landlady and her son consists of three bed rooms apart from the other accommodation, which apparently was wrong. The landlady herself appeared in the witness box as A.W.1. She categorically stated that she was living in Government house No. 1325, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh, which has been allotted in the name of her son. That quarter has one bed room, one store, one kitchen and a small dining room. No question was put to her in her cross-examination challenging her said version. It is in evidence and not disputed that the landlady has a daughter aged about 32 years, and two sons who are of the age of 27 and 24 years. All of them are living with her in the said quarter. An affidavit dated January 16, 1985, has been filed in this Court by Shri Gurcharanjit Singh, one of the sons of Iqbal Singh, wherein it has been stated that after the institution of the ejectment proceedings, he has been married and has also been blessed with a son. He has further stated that he was in occupation of a XII-Type quarter which consisted of one bed room, one store, one kitchen and a small dining room. The family of the landlady consists of seven persons including the deponent Gurcharanjit Singh. The accommodation in the said Government quarter is insufficient for their residence. Thus, in view of the subsequent event brought on the record by way of the affidavit, mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the authorities below was wrong, illegal and misconceived. The present accommodation in the occupation of the landlady and her children was totally inadequate to meet their requirement. She has three sons and a daughter the pendency of these proceedings. The accommodation in the said Government quarter is only one bed room, one store, one kitchen and a small dining room which under no circumstances could be held to be sufficient to meet their requirement. Thus, from the evidence on the record, it is amply proved that the landlady required the premises for her own use and occupation and the findings of the authorities below, in this behalf, are against the evidence on the record because there is no evidence to show that the present accommodation with the landlady consists of three bed rooms apart from other accommodation as found by the Appellate Authority. In this view of the matter, the other ground of ejectment that the tenant had changed the user of the premises need not be gone into.

(3.) In Civil Revision Petition No. 2787 of 1984, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that even if it be assumed that the premises were let out for residential purposes, even then, no ejectment order could be passed against him on the ground of change of user because the photostat machine has been installed on a very small portion of the building wherein admittedly the tenant is also residing along with his family. According to the learned counsel, it did not amount to change of user of the demised premises. As observed earlier, the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises was sought inter alia on the grounds of bonafide personal requirement as well as the change of user thereof. The ground of bonafide personal necessity was negatived by the Rent Controller on the ground that another eviction application filed by the landlady against Dr. Vinod Kumar Arora had been dismissed by him wherein her contention in this regard was not accepted and, therefore, the same was not available to her in the instant eviction application. Earlier, the said order of the Rent Controller as well as that of the Appellate Authority affirming his finding in appeal, has been set aside by me. It has been found as a fact therein by me that the landlady requires the premises bonafide for her personal necessity in view of the number of her family members and the present accommodation in her occupation. On the same ground of bonafide personal necessity, she is entitled to eject her tenant Kuldip Singh, petitioner as well from the demised premises. It was urged on behalf of this tenant-petitioner that this ground was never taken before the Appellate Authority on behalf of the landlord, th, thore,ore, sam samuld uld be abe aed ted t rai raifor sed the first time in the revision petition. However, I do not find any merit in this contention because the eviction order was passed against the petitioner on the ground of change of user and, therefore, the landlady felt satisfied thereto. However, she is entitled to maintain the eviction order on other grounds also which are amply proved on the record by the cogent evidence. The reason given by the Rent Controller to negative the ground of bonafide personal requirement is not tenable as the order of the Rent Controller as well as that of the Appellate Authority in Civil Revision Petition No. 2227 of 1984, have been set aside by me in the earlier part of this judgment.