MADAN LAL Vs. MANGE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the chaubara in dispute, which formed part of the residential building inter alia on the ground of his personal requirement. It was also pleaded that the tenant had constructed his own house which was sufficient for her residence. The chaubara, in dispute, was a residential building and was let out as such, but the tenant was using the same for stroing his goods. In the written statement, the tenant pleaded that the chaubara was situated just over the shop under his separate tenancy and was being used for commercial purpose only inasmuch as trade goods were stocked by him therein. It had no amenities such as bath room, kitchen, latrine or water supply. It was admitted that he had constructed a house is Satsang Bhawan Street in the year 1961 which he had sold four years back and thereafter he had purchased a constructed house where he was residing. The learned Rent Controller found that the demised premises were a residential building and were let out for residential purposes and that the tenant was liable to be evicted therefrom since he had constructed his own house which was sufficient for his accommodation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove by any cogent evidence that the demised premises were used by the tenant for residential purposes or that the same were let out for the said purpose. However, relying upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka 1986 Punjab Law Reporter 1, it came to the conclusion that since the chaubara, in dispute, formed a part of the residential building, the landlord was entitled to evict the tenant for his personal bonafide requirement even if the same was let out for non-residential purpose.

(3.) IN the ejectment application, the landlord categorically stated that the chaubara, in dispute, was a residential building as it was constructed for the purpose of residence and was being used as such even by the earlier tenants. Earlier also, the landlord filed an ejectment application on the ground of sub-letting wherein the building was shown to be a residential one. In the written statement, it was pleaded by the tenant that since there was no bath-room etc. attached to the chaubara, the same could not be held to be a residential building. Thus, from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, particularly the plan, Exhibit A. 1 it is quite evident that the chaubara, in dispute, is an integral part residential building. Once it is so held, then even if it was used for non residential purposes, the landlord was entitled to evict the tenant therefrom on the ground of his personal necessity. From the evidence, it appears that the ground floors of the buildings in whole of the vicinity are being used for business purposes whereas the first floors are being used for residential purposes. There is no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the authorities below wherein it has been held that the chaubara, in dispute, was a residential building being an integral part of the residential building.