SATYA BHALLA Vs. BISHAMBER DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the judgement dt. 14-3-1986 passed by the learned Appellate Authority Chandigarh, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, I949 as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh (for short 'the Act'), whereby an order of ejectment dt. 15-1-1985 passed against the petitioner by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, has been affirmed and her appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) Bishamber Dass Kohli (since deceased) was the owner of house No. 588, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh, which is without dispute a residential building. He is represented in this revision petition through his sons P.N. Kohli and Prem Kumar Kohli, respondents 1 and 2 respectively. He let out this house to Smt. Satya Bhalla petitioner for purposes of residence vide rent note dt. 1-11-1974 at a monthly rent of Rs. 550/-. An ejectment application was filed under S.13 of the Act by the landlord for ejectment of the petitioner on three grounds, namely, that she had neither paid nor tendered rent since February, 1983, although she was liable to pay the same every month in advance; that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his son P.N. Kohli who wanted to shift to Chandigarh; and that the husband of the petitioner, Shri Gopi Chand, who is an Advocate, has established his office in the 'house and is using a part of the same as office-cum-library for his profession as a Lawyer. Therefore, the tenant-petitioner is guilty of change of user of the building without the written consent of the landlord in that the character of the building has been changed from that of residential to a scheduled building.

(3.) The petitioner opposed the application. She filed her written statement. She refuted the allegation of non-payment of rent as also the ground for personal necessity of the landlord qua the premises in dispute either for himself or for his son. She further averred that the landlord knew from the very beginning that her husband is an Advocate. Her husband has been using one room in the house as Library-cum-office. The major portion of the house is being used for residential purposes. Therefore, there is no change of user. She maintained that the house in dispute is not a scheduled building and she does not claim any protection on that basis. She admitted that the demised building is a residential one. She stated that she had taken the house on rent for the residence of herself and her family members and her husband has his office in one room. The arrears of rent and interest along with the costs were tendered on the first date of hearing.