RAM CHAND Vs. MISS SANTOSH BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.1986 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ferozepore, under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'). Vide this judgment it has dismissed an appeal of the landlord-petitioner and has affirmed the judgment dated 11.1985 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ferozepur, by which an application of the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the respondent was dismissed.

(2.) The premises in dispute form part of the house in which the petitioner himself reside. Previously Shri Des Bhasin Advocate, father of the respondent, was a tenant therein. In addition to the present demised premises, he had some other portion of the building also under this tenancy. The petitioner has filed an application for ejectment of Des Raj Bhasin which was pending when the latter died on 19.2.1978. Soon thereafter a compromise took place between the petitioner and the respondent as a result of which the latter surrendered possession of two rooms, a courtyard on the ground floor and one miani on the mazzanine floor and she was accepted as a tenant under the petitioner on the remaining part of the premises earlier under the tenancy of her father. The rate of rent was enhanced from Rs. 32/- per month to Rs. 50/- per month. A compromise deed was duly executed. She paid to the petitioner Rs. 704/- as arrears of rent for the earlier period and also paid Rs. 1300/- as advance to the landlord to carry out reconstruction of a roof. This amount was to be adjusted towards the future rent. The premises in respect of which there is now relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties are shown in pink colour in the plan Ex.A-1. These comprise of a miani and a lobby on the mezzanine floor, a living room, a drawing room, a store, a kitchen, a bath-room and a terrace on the first floor. On these facts, there is no dispute between the parties.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application for ejectment of the respondent on three grounds, first ground being non-payment of rent. The arrears of rent having been tendered on the first date of hearing it no longer subsists. The second ground alleged was that the respondent had committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building, and the third ground was that the petitioner requires the demised premises for his married son. The learned Rent Controller vide his judgment dated 11.1.1985 held that neither of these grounds has been established and consequently the ejectment application was dismissed. Some directions were no doubt given to the effect that the petitioner should allow the respondent to install flush system. The petitioner was burdened with Rs. 500/- as special costs. At the same time the respondent was required to pay Rs. 400/- to the petitioner to carry out repairs to drains X-1 and X-2 shown in the photograph Ex.PX-1. The petitioner carried an appeal against the judgment of the learned Rent Controller before the learned Appellate Authority which was, however, dismissed vide judgment which is now the subject matter of the present revision petition.