RAM LAL ARORA Vs. P.S. RAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition in whose favour eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE premises, in dispute, are situate in house No. 2408, Section 37-C, Chandigarh. They were rented out to the tenant. Dr. P.S. Rawat, in April, 1979, at a monthly rent of Rs. 325. The present ejectment application was filed on April 26, 1983, on the grounds that the tenant had changed the user of the premises by opening a clinical laboratory therein and that the same were required by the landlord for his bonafide use and occupation. It was also pleaded that at present, the landlord was residing in a rented accommodation in a barsati consisting of one room and a kitchen. It was insufficient for a family of four persons including the mother of the landlord who was dependent upon him and was also a heart patient. If was difficult for her to negotiate the stair case to the third floor. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was denied that there was any change of user as alleged. According to him, he was using the premises for the purpose for which they were let out. It was also denied that the present premises were bonafide required for the use and occupation of the landlord. According to him, the present ejectment application had been moved by the landlord with a mala fide intention as two such application filed by him earlier had already been dismissed. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the demised premises were let out for the purpose of residence whereas the tenant had subsequent started using the same for running a clinical laboratory. Thus, it was a clear change of user thereof. It was also found that the landlord required the premises bonafide for his use and occupation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant on December 14, 1984. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and held that since there was no plea in the ejectment application that the premises were rented out due to financial constraint by the landlord in the absence of any such plea by him, his statement that he let out the premises due to financial difficultly will be held to be an after thought. It was also held that the statement of the landlord was not sufficient to prove his bonafide need to occupy the premises. As regards the plea of change of user, the Appellate Authority found that in view of the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1085 of 1985 (Dr. P.S. Rawat v. Ram Lal Arora, 1986(1) RCR 591 decided on November 19, 1985, it could not be held that the premises were being used for a purpose other than the one for which the same were let out. Consequently, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his use and occupation, but the said finding has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily. According to the learned counsel, necessary averments were made in the ejectment application. It was wrong on the part of the Appellate Authority to observe that since there was no plea in the petition that the premises were let out due to financial constraint, the statement of the landlord to that effect was an after thought. In any case, argued the learned counsel, in view of the subsequent events, the present accommodation in occupation of the landlord was insufficient and, therefore, his requirement was bonafide. It was also contended that the landlord had changed the user of the premises not by running a clinic alone but also by running a laboratory in the demised premises. According to the learned counsel, in the earlier judgment of this Court in the afore mentioned revision petition, it was held that the premises were let out for the purpose of residence as well as for running a clinic, but it was nowhere held that the landlord was entitled to run a laboratory therein. Thus argued the learned counsel, on both the grounds the tenants was liable to be ejected from the demised premises. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the present ejectment application was fourth attempt on the part of the landlord to eject him. Earlier, he had filed a civil suit on April 28, 1981, which was stayed by Supreme Court. Later on, he moved the application for ejectment on June 8, 1982, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Another application was filed on December 24, 1982, which was ultimately dismissed by the High Court. The instant ejectment application was filed on April 26, 1983, on the ground of personal necessity, which ground was never pleaded earlier by the landlord. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the requirement of the landlord could not be held to be bonafide. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel relied upon Labhu Ram v. Om Parkash Maheshwari, 1984(2) RCR 84 and Mangat Ram v. Om Parkash, 1983 (2) RCR 297.