NEM CHAND ETC Vs. VED PARKASH CHHABRA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision directed against the judgments of the rent Controller and the appellate Authority whereby he has been ordered to be ejected from the premises in dispute.

(2.) EJECTMENT of the petitioner was sought from three bed-rooms, drawing-cum-dining, two verandahs, kitchen, latrine, bath-room and one room over the garage on the first floor of House No. 2132, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. It was the case of the landlord, Brij Lal (now deceased) and being represented by legal representatives (respondents herein) that at the first instance, he had let out three bed-rooms, drawing cum dining, two verandahs, kitchen, latrine and bath-room on the first floor of House No. 2132, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh, at a rent of Rs. 575.00 per month excluding water and electricity charges. He alleged that since he had to go to U. S. A. , he handed over keys of the house to one Des Raj to look after the house in question. In his absence, tenant took possession of one room over the garage and one room On the ground floor and when landlord come to Chandigarh, he objected to it and requested the tenant to vacate these two rooms and the landlord was compelled under threat, coercion and pressure to sign a receipt for a rent of Rs. 825.00 and then only the tenant vacated one room on the ground floor and in this way he became tenant at a rent of Rs. 825.00 in respect of three bed-rooms, drawing cum dining, two verandahs, latrine, bathroom on the first floor and one room over the garage, landlord sought ejectment of the tenant from these premises on the ground that after the commencement of the Act, tenant has sub-let two rooms in the main house to his son, S. K. Jain and a room over the garage to M/s M. V. Sales. Ejectment was also sought on the ground that the room over the garage was let out for residential purpose, but the same is being used for non-residential purpose. Tenant, Nem Chand Jain and his son, S. K. Jain and M/s M. V. sales filed a joint written statement. In the written statement, they averred that tenancy in regard to the premises is not a composite one, but consists of two separate and distinct tenancies; one in respect of a set of accommodation comprising three bed-rooms, drawing-cum-dining, two verandahs, kitchen, latrine and bath-room and the other in respect of a room over the garage. This tenancy, according to the tenant, started on 1. 1. 1980 at a rent of Rs. 575.00 per month which subsequently was enhanced to Rs. 625.00 per month w. e. f. 1. 2. 1983. The other tenancy is in respect of a set of accommodation comprising one room over the garage with attached bath-room and latrine which was created w. e. f. 15. 3. 1982 at a rent of Rs. 200.00 per month. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 19. 11. 1983 :

(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are not sustainable in law inasmuch as it has been found by the Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority that tenancy in regard to the premises is not a composite one, rather it consists of two tenancies-one in respect of premises on the first floor of House No. 2132, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh and the other in regard to a room over the garage which tenancy was created on 15. 3. 1982 at a rent of Rs. 200.00 per month. Counsel contended that if the finding is accepted in regard to sub-letting of the room over the garage and change of user of that room from residential to non-residential, then the tenant is liable to be ejected only from that room and not for the other set of accommodation, tenancy of which is separate and distinct. He also contended that as regards the premises on the first floor, ejectment has been ordered on the ground that a part of it has been sub-let by Nem Chand Jain to his son, S. K. Jain. Counsel contended that the finding in this regard is erroneous and therefore, the judgments of the Authorities below are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, counsel for respondents, has contended that finding has been recorded by the Courts below that there are two separate and distinct tenancies, but he contend that finding in this regard is not correct. He also contended that finding in regard to sub-letting and change of user being a finding of fact is not to be interfered within revisional jurisdiction. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the records, I am of the view that revision petition deserves to succeed. It is common case of the parties that at the first instant three bed-rooms, drawing-cum-dining, two verandahs, kitchen, latrine and bath-room on the first floor of House No. 2132, sector 21-C, Chandigarh, were let out w. e. f. 1. 1. 1980 on a rent of Rs. 575.00 per month. The room over the garage with attached bath-room and latrine was let out on 15. 3. 1982 at a rent of Rs. 200.00 per month. Later, rent of the set of accommodation was raised from Rs. 575.00 to Rs. 625.00, but rent of the room over the garage remained to be Rs. 200.00 per month. Though the case set up by the landlord in the ejectment application was that the entire premises were let out at a rent of Rs. 825.00 per month, but the Rent Controller and also the appellate Authority on the basis of evidence on record have found that there are two premises. As a matter of fact, landlord did not challenge the finding in this regard before the appellate Authority and for that matter, the appellate Authority in para 16 of the judgment observed that "it is proved on the record that two tenancies had been created by the landlord at different points of time and this finding has not been challenged on behalf of the landlord". In my view, the finding that there are two separate and distinct tenancies is not to be interfered with as various receipts, namely, Exhibits R-1, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-6/1, R-6/5, R-6/9, R-6/8, R-6/9 and R-7 which were executed by the landlord acknowleding rent of the two sets of accommodation, i. e. one for Rs. 625.00 and another Rs. 200.00 per month, go a long way to show that the tenancy was not a composite one as has been contended by counsel for respondents. In the ejectment application, ejectment was sought from the room over the garage on the ground that it has been sub-let by the tenant to M/s M. V. sales without the consent of landlord and also that respondent No. 3 is using the room over the garage for commercial purpose instead of residential purpose for which it was let out. Rent Controller and also the appellate Authority on the appreciation of evidence have found that M/s M. V. sales Corporation is in occupation of a room over the garage and is using it for non-residential purpose. The finding in this regard has not been challenged by the counsel for the petitioners. Otherwise too, I am of the view that finding in this respect is not to be interfered with as sufficient evidence has come on record to show that M/s M. V. sales is in occupation of room over the garage and it is running the business of machinery parts and electrical goods. The user qua these premises has been changed from residential to non-residential.