HARPARSHAD Vs. SARLA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE house in dispute is constructed on a 5-Malra plot in Sector 8-B, Chandigarh. The tenant Harparshad is occupying first floor consisting of 2 rooms on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- since long. However, the said house was purchased by the landlady Smt. Sarla vide two sale deeds dated 12.7.1982 and 21.10.1982. Application for ejectment against her tenantGurbax Singh who was occupying the ground-floor was filed on 6-12-1982 whereas the application against the tenant Harprashad was filed on 12.5.1967. The ejectment of Harprashad, tenant was sought on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent with effect from November, 1980, and secondly, on the ground that she bonafidely required the premises for her own use and occupation, as the present accommodation in the occupation of her husband was in sufficient and at the same time he was paying rent @ Rs. 350/- mensem of the premises consisting of two rooms, whereas, she was getting only Rs. 75/- per mensem from the tenant Harparshad. In the written statement, the tenant pleaded that the accommodation in her occupation was sufficient to meet her requirements and she was occupying the premises though rented in her own right and therefore, she could not seek his ejectment. As regards the arrears of rent, the tenant tendered arrears with effect from 1.11.1981 to 31.5.1983. Prior to that period it was stated that the rent was paid to the earlier landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that the tender made on the first date of hearing was valid and sufficient. On the question of bonafide requirements, the learned Rent Controller found that it was nowhere proved on record that House No. 604, Sector, 8-B, Chandigarh presently under the occupation of the landlady and her husband is unsuitable to their requirements. So far as the economic necessity is concerned the law does not provide for ejectment of the tenant on that ground. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed both the findings of the Rent Controller. On the question of arrears of rent, the Appellate Authority found that the tenant has failed to prove that he has paid the rent prior to 1.11.1981, whereas the landlady claimed since November, 1980. Thus, according to the Appellate Authority the tender made on the first date of hearing was not valid. On the question of bonafide necessity, the learned Appellate Authority found that the landlady has succeeded in establishing that she required the premises in dispute bonafidly for the personal use and occupation because she is not owning any other property in the urban area in her own right, nor she has vacated any such property after coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Consequently has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant-petitioner contended that as regards the non-payment of arrears of rent since there was no assignment of the arrears by the earlier landlord in favour of the landlady in the sale deed she was not entitled to claim the same in the ejectment application. Thus argued the learned counsel, the tender made on the first date of hearing was thereforee valid.