VOLTAS LIMITED Vs. J.C. MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 19th may, 1986 of the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Union Territory of Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Act) accepting an application under section 13 of the Act filed by the landlord-respondents and directing ejectment of the petitioner from house No. 303, Section 9-D, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE petitioner, limited Company, took the premises in dispute on rent vide lease deed dated 1th March, 1960 for residence and business. Sarvshri J. C. Malhotra and B.C. Malhotra respondents besides their brother Dr. N.C. Malhotra, Major S.C. Malhotra, Ramesh C. Malhotra and Roop C. Malhotra are the owners of the premises. The respondents filed the application for ejectment of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation as Chief Engineer, Beas Sutlej Link Project, Sunder Nagar (Himachal Pradesh) on 30th April, 1982 and wanted to settle permanently at Chandigarh alongwith his wife Smt. Tara Malhotra after surrendering the vacant possession of the Government accommodation allotted to him at Sunder Nagar. Respondent No. 2 stated that he is working as Chief Engineer in Irrigation Department, Haryana, and is posted at Chandigarh. Besides his wife he has a grown up unmarried son Vikram Malhotra, who is working as Engineer with M/s Punjab Tractors Limited, Mohali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. For want of availability of Government accommodation, thus claimed respondent No. 2, he alongwith his wife and the said unmarried son was occupying a rented accommodation consisting of drawing-cum-dining room, study room, store, 3 small bed rooms with attached toilet, kitchen and garage on the ground floor of House No. 265, Section 35-A, Chandigarh at Rs. 1200/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges. That accommodation was not befitting their status. Both the respondents thus stated in their application that they alongwith their families bonafide require the demised premises in question for their own use and occupation.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-