LAWS(P&H)-1987-8-32

MOHD. HANIF Vs. GIAN CHAND

Decided On August 18, 1987
MOHD. HANIF Appellant
V/S
GIAN CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.9.1985 of the learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur, under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), whereby it accepted the appeal of the landlord-respondent and ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the rented land situated in Mohalla Chowdharian near Jamalpuri Gate, Malerkotla.

(2.) THE respondent filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act alleging inter alia that the petitioner is a tenant under him in respect of the rented land which was fully described therein at a monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. A rent note dated 5.3.1980 Exhibit A-1, was executed by the petitioner and the rented land was rented out to him by the petitioner. It was inter alia alleged that the respondent required the said rented land for his own use for running business. The application was opposed by the petitioner. He admitted the fact that he is a tenant under the respondent on the rented land but he further proceeded to State that at the time he took the same on rent there was one room already constructed by Smt. Lila Devi wife of Chhote Lal where an Atta Chakki was installed and was being run by her. He had purchased the Atta Chakki and the structure of the room from Lila Devi vide agreement Exhibit R-1 for a consideration of Rs. 17,500/-. He denied the allegation that the respondent required the rented land for his own use. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the respondent vide judgment dated 18.10.1983. He held that the respondent already owns a big factory and 5/7 shops in the town. The bonafide need of the respondent for carrying on business on the rented land in dispute was, therefore, not established.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. He submitted that since the respondent owns a steel rolling factory in Malerkotla and also owns 5/7 shops, his need to install grinding machine for Atta, Maida and Spices, is not bonafide. The second submission is that since a room was already constructed on the rented land and an Atta Chakki was installed therein when the premises was taken on rent by the petitioner from the respondent it is a non-residential building within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act and not a rented land within the meaning of Section 2(f) thereof. Thus, keeping in view the provisions of Section 13(3)(ii) of the Act, the premises in dispute not being a rented land, the respondent could not get possession of the same on the ground that he requires it for his own use.