BALDEV SINGH Vs. SAT PAL SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order was passed in appeal. The landlord Sat Pal Shukla sought the ejectment of his tenant Baldev Singh from the demised premises forming part of a residential building on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. It was also pleaded that the premises were let out for residence at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- whereas the tenant has started using the same for tailoring purposes. The premises are residential in nature. In the written statement the tenant pleaded that the premises are commercial and as such could not be got vacated for personal necessity. He further pleaded that he did not take the premises on rent for residence but he had taken for tailoring purposes and he is conducting the same business since the inception of the tenancy. The learned Rent Controller found that though a case for personal necessity has been set out but since the premises were let out for commercial purposes the same could not be got vacated. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed.

(2.) IN appeal the main controversy between the parties was as to when the premises were let out. According to the tenant the premises were let out in the year 1945 much prior to the coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act whereas according to the landlord, the premises were let out in the year 1954-55. The appellate authority found that the premises were let out in 1954-55 and since it formed integral part of a double storeyed house which consists of two rooms on the ground floor and two chaubaras on the first floor and, therefore, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Shri Hari Mittal v. Shri B.M. Sikka, 1986 P.L.J. 1, the premises even though let out for commercial purposes still remained a residential building and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to evict his tenant for his personal necessity. Consequently, eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this petition. Admittedly, the premises in dispute consists of one room which is a part of the residential building. Even if it was let out for tailoring business, it still continues to be a residential building and the landlord was entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant for his personal necessity. It cannot be disputed that the landlord bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. Rather it has been concurrently found by both the authorities that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed 3 months time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with an undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.