SURINDER MOHAN Vs. RATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE twin civil revisions arise out of a single action of the eviction in respect of H.No. 1037/3, the ground and the first floor situate within the limits of Chandigarh Administration. The grounds of eviction urged by the landlord were non-payment of rent, personal requirement of the landlord and subletting by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of the first floor of the construction. The tenant pleaded change in status as a person in part performance of an agreement of purchase from what was originally that of a tenant and that he was not liable to be evicted. The Rent Controller accepted the contentions and dismissed the petition. The landlord preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who ordered eviction of the first floor of the construction only and dismissed the petition for eviction in respect of the ground floor.

(2.) THE tenant preferred the civil revision No. 3270 of 1990 directing eviction of the first floor and the landlord filed civil revision No. 671 of 1991 against rejection of his plea for ejectment in respect of the ground floor. The two civil revision petitions address common issues of facts arisen from the same transaction and they are, therefore, disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) THE tenant resisted the landlord's petition contending that he was ready and willing to purchase the property and the sale could not be completed only by the conduct of the landlord in not executing the document as per his undertaking. The Rent Controller found that the landlord had not come to Court with clean hands and there were no definite pleadings about when the tenant had sublet the premises and that further after the execution of the agreement of sale, the tenant could not any longer be treated as a person in possession of the property maintaining the jural relationship and consequently dismissed the petition. The Appellate Court differed from the finding of the Rent Controller and had held that after the landlord's contention was that only the first floor of the building had been rented out to the tenant and that he had forcefully entered into possession of the ground floor without his consent. His continuance of the possession of ground floor was thus not in the capacity of a tenant and the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 could, therefore, be not invoked with reference to the claim for the ground floor. As regards the first floor, the Appellate Court found that every one of the aspects that was required to be proved for ejectment namely non- payment of rent, exclusive possession of a person other than his tenant at the first floor and the requirement of the landlord had all been established and therefore, ordered eviction only of the first floor.