SANJU Vs. NANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, is aggrieved of order dtd. 22/2/2017, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh as well as order dtd. 6/7/2018, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh whereby eviction petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the petitioner, filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (for short 'Act'), seeking ejectment of the respondent from the premises as detailed therein. Petitioner, claimed to be the owner of the property in question, while pleading that the house in question was allotted by the Chandigarh Housing Board to Sh. Nathu Ram, her father-in-law. Nathu Ram, died on 25/5/1998. Petitioner's husband, Rishi Pal son of Nathu Ram, it is pleaded, succeeded to the property. However, Rishi Pal, unfortunately fell ill and ultimately died on 31/5/2004 at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector -32, Chandigarh. As the petitioner required money for the treatment of her husband, she came in contact with the respondent in the year 2004, itself, who offered Rs.1.10 lakh as a friendly loan. It is further pleaded that in lieu thereof, he requested that the petitioner's house be given to him on rent. The rate of rent was settled as Rs.5000.00 per month and it was agreed that no interest would be paid by the petitioner after adjustment of the rent in the loan amount. It was further agreed that monthly rent of the demised premises would thereafter be enhanced to Rs.7000.00 per month. Accordingly, the petitioner, it is claimed herself shifted to a rented accommodation. After the loan amount was adjusted, the respondent defaulted in the deposit of rent to the tune of Rs.5.67 lakh. It is further pleaded that the petitioner herself was residing in rental accommodation having a daughter and grown-up son, who had recently got married. Petitioner thus desired to shift to her house along with her children. Therefore, ejectment of the respondent was sought on the ground of personal bona fide necessity and non payment of rent w.e.f, January 2006. Accordingly, the petition was filed.

(3.) Respondent contested the petition while raising various preliminary objections. He claimed that he was a bonafide purchaser of the property in question and had duly purchased the same from Rishi Pal i.e., son of the original allottee. Agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit and will, were purportedly executed by Rishi Pal, who was the son and first class legal heir of the original allottee-Nathu Ram. Actual physical possession of the house in question, it is stated was handed over to the respondent in the year 2003 by Rishi Pal himself. The petitioner, in-fact tried to take forcible possession of the house in question in August 2012. Respondent reported the matter to the police on which the petitioner is stated to have fled from the area. No action was being taken by the police in this regard. Respondent claimed to be depositing the electricity and water charges being the absolute owner and he claimed to have spent Rs.2.00 lakh on construction of another floor. Dismissal of the petition was sought.