RANJIT KAUR Vs. KULRAJ SINGH PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlady's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the courts below.

(2.) The landlady Smt. Ranjit Kaur is the owner of H. No. 64, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh. It was claimed that the tenant Kulraj Singh Paul took on rent the ground floor of the said house @ Rs. 350/- p.m. with effect from 1st January, 1972. Later the annexe ground floor portion was also taken on rent by the tenant and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 410/- p.m. with effect from 1st December, 1972. According to the landlady, the first floor of the annexe and other constructed portion on the first floor was in her occupation. She further claimed that earlier also she filed two ejectment application, one in the year 1975 on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 21st May, 1976. In appeal, the eviction order was passed by the appellate authority on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent alone. The other ground of personal necessity was negatived. The High Court also dismissed Civil Revision on 12th March, 1980, filed by the tenant, and now he has approached the Supreme Court of India by way of special leave to appeal which is pending. The second ejectment application was filed by the landlady in the year 1976 on the sole ground of non-payment of rent which decreed ex parte on 3rd November, 1977. However the ex parte decree was set aside on the agreement of both the parties, in 16th December, 1977. Since the tenant failed to comply with the conditions agreed between him and the landlady the eviction order was maintained and no revision of appeal etc., was filed against the said order. However, objections were filed to the execution which were also dismissed on 14th January, 1981, and the High Court dismissed the revision petition on 26th April, 1982 on that behalf. Still the tenant approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition and his appeal is now pending there. The present ejectment application was filed on 14th August, 1981 on the sole ground that the landlady bonafide required the premises of her own use and occupation. She claimed that she was earlier residing in U.K. but had now shifted to Chandigarh and now a days has been living with her brother Shri B.S. Lalyall at Mughal Sarai in U.P. According to her the climate of England did not suit her and she, therefore, would have to shift to India to live in her own house at Chandigarh. It was further maintained that she had been suffering from Asthama and, so it was proper and suitable for the health to live at Chandigarh. She further claimed that she had shifted to India in the first week of April, 1981 and had been residing here since them; that she has two sons and a daughter; that the sons were studying in England and her husband was employed there; that as the conditions in England were not congenial the other family members of hers may also have to shift to India any moment. She further stated that she did not occupy any other building except some portion on the first floor of the house in dispute and had not vacated any building within the urban area of Chandigarh.

(3.) In the written statement the tenant pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He further claimed that he was a tenant in respect of the whole house, i.e. the ground floor and the first, and the landlady had forcibly occupied the first floor of the house. He further pleaded that in the earlier ejectment application filed in the year 1975, the ground of personal necessity was negatived by the Rent Controller and even by the appellate authority and so the said order had become final and operated as res judicata ad provided u/s. 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Controller Act. It was also pleaded that the landlady had been harassing the tenant by filing several petitions and she actually never required the premises for her bonafide use and occupation as she and her family members were permanently settled in England and were British subjects.