CHHAJU RAM Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this Court's order dated 6th August, 1987, eviction order was passed against the tenants from the premises in dispute consisting of the first floor as well as the ground floor. The tenants moved the present review petition alleging that there were two separate tenancies for the ground floor and for the first floor. Since the ground floor was given on rent for commercial purposes and, therefore, that being so, no eviction order could be passed against them with respect to the ground floor on the ground of personal necessity. Notice of this application was given to the landlord, who filed the reply thereto. Rejoinder to the said reply has been filed on behalf of the tenants.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the tenants submitted that since it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that there were two separate tenancies, though one application for ejectment was maintainable but since the eviction order has been passed on the ground of personal necessity no orders could be passed with respect to the ground floor which was rented out separately for commercial purposes. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that even if two portions were let out separately even then later on the tenants paid one rent qua both the premises and not only that, after that property was purchased by the landlord in the year 1972 vide Exhibit RX a new agreement has come into being between the parties and after the sale deed, the tenants paid rent vide receipts Exhibits R-4 and R-5 and since then the tenancy was being treated as one. Thus, argued the learned counsel, that being so both the authorities below held that one joint application was maintainable though initially the premises were let out separately. Moreover, it is further contended that the parties are litigating for the past 11 years and in case, only the first floor is vacated and the ground floor still continues in occupation with the tenants the controversy between the parties will still continue and in that case the landlord will also be not able to reconstruct the whole building in order to live there comfortably. It was also submitted that there is no ground for reviewing the order passed earlier.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the review application is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The undertaking in writing may be filed within one month from today. Appeal dismissed.