SURINDER KUMAR Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the above mentioned three CMs which have been filed during the pendency of the revision petitions as there is common question of law involved.

(2.) THIS CM has been filed by the applicant (landlord-respondent in the petition) seeking vacation of the interim stay granted by this Court pending revision petition. The landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act - for short) seeking ejectment of the tenant-non-applicant (petitioner) from SCF 84, Sector 26, Grain Market, Chandigarh, on the ground that the tenant had changed the user of the demised premises from grain shop to selling tea. In view of this, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, had initiated proceedings for mis-use of the demised premises and had resumed the building vide order dated 8.10.1991. Further revision and appeal against the said order had been dismissed. The other ground for seeking ejectment of the tenant was non-payment of rent and also that the landlord required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. The petition for ejectment of the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 3.10.1996. The Appellate Authority held that the premises were required by the landlord for his personal use. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 5.11.2001. Accordingly, the ejectment of the tenant was ordered. The tenant has assailed the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority in this court by way of Civil Revision 6463 of 2001 in which notice of motion was issued on 6.12.2001. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.7.2003, dispossession of the tenant was stayed by this Court. The landlord has, thus, filed the present CM for vacation of said stay in which it is inter alia also prayed that the tenant be directed to compensate the landlord at the market rate for use and occupation of the premises after the passing of decree of eviction. The tenant has filed reply to the said application in which it is stated that the order granting stay was passed by this court on 15.7.2003 in presence of both the counsel for the parties. Therefore, the present CM is not maintainable. It is also stated that eviction on the ground of personal necessity in respect of commercial buildings is not maintainable and that SLP in this regard is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) THE applicant (landlord-respondent) has filed this CM for fixing mesne profits/damages in respect of the demised premises i.e. SCF 1, Sector 23C, Chandigarh. The tenant is stated to be in occupation of half front portion of the ground floor measuring 194 sq ft approximately i.e. the shop portion along with the store at a monthly rent of Rs. 180/- and Rs. 15/- as water charges, total Rs. 195/- per month. The applicant (landlord-respondent) filed ejectment petition on 21.12.1995 which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 6.12.1991. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 7.11.2001. The tenant filed revision petition against the said order and his dispossession was stayed vide order dated 6.2.2002. It is claimed that in another adjoining booth i.e. Nos. 20-21, Sector 23, Chandigarh, a registered lease deed (Annexure A2) had been entered into between the parties in respect of the area measuring 250 sq ft on 3.2.2005 at a monthly rent of Rs. 21,500/-. Besides, another booth No. 16, Sector 23, Chandigarh measuring 126 sq ft had been rented out @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, it is claimed that the landlord is entitled to mesne profits/damages pending the revision petition.