MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. SATWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom order of eviction has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) Satwant Kaur, respondent sought the ejectment of Mukhtiar Singh,' tenant, from the demised premises which consists of a residential house No. 11-L, Model Town, Panipat, let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 106/- since July 4, 1970. His ejectment therefrom was claimed inter alia on the grounds that the house was rented out to him for residential purposes but he has converted it into a non-residential building without her written consent and that he was using it for the purpose other than the one for which it was let out to him, i.e., it had been let out to him for residence but he had started using it for legal practice. The eviction application was contested by the tenant inter alia on the ground that the application was barred by the principles of res judicata, and, therefore, the same was not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that from the very beginning he had taken the demised premises for his residence as well as for his profession of advocacy, and since then he had been carrying on his legal profession in one room of the house and was residing in the remaining portion thereof. The other allegations made in the ejectment application were also controverted. It may be mentioned here that prior to the filing of the present ejectment application, the landlady had filed an ejectment application dt. Aug. 9, 1976, for ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that she bona fide required the same for her own use and occupation. In the said application, the plea taken on behalf of the tenant was that the building was non-residential one as a part of it was being used for business purposes by him, as he was a practising lawyer at Panipat, for having his office and library; hence the said ejectment application merited dismissal. A certified copy of the Written Statement therein is Ex.P.4. Not only that, the tenant had also moved an application in the said eviction application, a certified copy of which is Ex.P.3, for framing of additional issues. In para. 2 thereof, it was stated :-

(3.) The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant was liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of the change of user thereof. The plea that the landlady required the premises bona fide for her son's use and occupation was negatived. The plea of res judicata raised on behalf of the tenant was also negatived. Consequently, the eviction application was allowed and an order of eviction passed against him. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of change of user of the demised premises, and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against him and in favour of the landlady Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant preferred this revision petition which came up before me while sitting singly.