AMAR PAL Vs. ANAND SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 2704 of 1985, as both the revisions have arisen out of the same order of the Appellate Authority, dated 4th June, 1985.

(2.) THE Landlord Anand Sarup filed ejectment application against his tenant Amar Pal and another from the building in dispute consisting of a shop in the ground floor and a chaubara on the first floor along with kitchen, latrine, bath-room and the courtyard. The demised premises were originally let out to Ganpat Rai, vide rent note dated 31st of March 1953 Exhibit P. 28 on a yearly rent of Rs. 300/-. In the rent note no purpose for which the premises were let out were mentioned though the building has been mentioned as a shop. According to the landlord the first floor is being used by the tenant for his residence whereas business is being carried on in the shop on the ground floor. The ejectment as sought on the ground that Amar Pal and others sons of Ganpat Rai (deceased) have sub-let the premises to M/s Raj Kumar Sunil Kumar, a partnership firm; that the landlord required the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. The petition was contested on the plea that the premises in dispute are not residential premises as it was let out for commercial purposes and, therefore, it could not be vacated for personal necessity. It was also pleaded that the landlord does not require the premises in question as he was residing with his father since long. It was denied that the premises were sub-let to M/s Raj Kumar Sunil Kumar. According to the tenant Amar Pal it was a partnership firm of which Amar Pal was also one of the partners.

(3.) DISSATISFIED with the eviction order, the tenants have filed Civil Revision No. 2047 of 1985 whereas the landlord has filed Civil Revision No. 2704 of 1985 challenging the finding of the Appellate Authority on the question of nature of the building.