SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. RAVI RAJ AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner, Smt. Santosh Kumari, rented out a room in a residential building bearing No. NB-257, Mohalla Lakshmipura, Jalandhar, to Messrs. Ravi Raj and Sons on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- on 4th May, 1981. The ejectment application was filed on 12th November, 1982, inter alia, on the ground that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation as well as for her family. It was also stated that the premises were rented out because the petitioner was in dire need of money to met the needs of the family; that she did not own any other building in the urban area concerned nor her family owned any such building; that her children were grownup and she was in possession of only one small room over the premises in dispute, which is hardly enough to meet her requirements; that she has got one son and three daughters who are school going; that prior to the leasing out of the premises she was living there but later she got loan from the tenant and constructed a chobara thereon and started living there. According to the petitioner further, the premises in dispute was a part of the residential building, and, therefore, she was entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of bonafide personal necessity. The petition was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the premises consisting of one room was rented out for business purposes, and, moreover, the same was situated in a bazar where the upper portion was used by the occupants for their residence whereas the ground floor was being used for business purposes; that the petition had been filed with an ulterior motive to increase the rent from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 600/-. According to the tenant the premises did not fall within the definition of residential building, and, therefore, could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement.

(3.) EFFORTS were made in this Court for compromise between the parties but unfortunately the learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that his client was not prepared for a compromise.