SWARAJ KUMAR MANROY Vs. BALDEV RAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlord has challenged the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority, dismissing the eviction petition filed the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for ejectment of the respondents from two rooms and a store being used as a kitchen on the first floor of H. No. 1512, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE petitioner claimed that he was owner of the house and one room on the barsati portion of the said house was given to respondent No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 60/- in November, 1973 and thereafter one room and a store were taken on the first floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 210/-. The tenants thereafter said to have left one room on the barsati portion and took room on the first floor and in this manner they became tenant in two rooms and store on the first floor of the house in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- excluding water and electricity charges. The eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent since 1989 and also on the ground of personal necessity that he wanted to come back to India from United Kingdom and settle in his own house at Chandigarh. He further claimed that his parents were residing at Dehradun and now they intended to live on the first floor of the said house in question as ground floor of the said house was in possession of his sister.

(3.) MR . Arun Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the courts below primarily on the ground that the averments made in paras 5 and 5-A of the petition were not specifically denied and therefore the claim of the petitioner for bona fide need, stood proved. However, reading of the pleadings of the parties does not lead to any such conclusion as para 5 of the petition was specifically denied and it was also pleaded that the present petition has been filed to pressurise the respondents herein to increase rent. Similarly, para 5-A of the petition was specifically denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller as well as of the appellate authority stood vitiated as they wrongly held that the petitioner had failed to produce the medical certificate regarding his disease on the basis of which he was seeking eviction of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ex. PW-2/D, to contend that the certificate was duly produced on record. The certificate produced by the petitioner reads as under :-