GURBAX RAI Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) LANDLORD Gurbax Rai Sood sought the ejectment of his tenant Karnail Singh from the building, in dispute, on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent since January 1, 1978 along with house-tax at the enhanced rate of 2-1/2% due from April, 1977 till the date of the filing of the ejectment application, i.e. January 3, 1979. It was also pleaded that Rs. 2,000/- were due as the arrears of rent up to December 31, 1977 as the rent was Rs. 195/- per month. According to the landlord, the premises were let out for residential purposes, but the same were being used for hosiery business. Therefore, the tenant was liable to be ejected therefrom on the ground of change of user also. In addition, the landlord also claimed that he bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The arrears of rent from January, 1978 to February, 1979, were tendered with interest on the date of the first hearing. However, as regards the arrears of Rs. 2,000/-, it was pleaded that nothing was due from the tenant. The other allegations made by the landlord were also controverted. It was asserted that the premises were let out for commercial purposes and as such the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord. The leaned Rent Controller found that the premises in dispute, were let out to the tenant for running the hosiery business, i.e., for non-residential purpose and not for residence as claimed by the landlord. In view of that finding the question of bonafiderequirement of the landlord was not gone into as the premises were held to be non-residential. The other pleas were also negatived. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord had filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.