MOHINDER KAUR Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlady's revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 17.1.1983 passed by the Court of the appellate authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), who confirmed the order dated 29.1.1982 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, an dismissed the petition of the landlady Mohinder Kaur under Section 13 of the Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Mohinder Kaur filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act against Baldev Singh seeking ejectment of the tenant from the premises fully described in the head note of the petition by alleging that she is the owner of the property bearing municipal No. B-XIV-2157/19 situated in Mohalla Hargo-bindpura, Ludhiana, and out of this building, the respondent is a tenant in two rooms and one kitchen and common courtyard at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month. The tenant has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent from 1.8.1979 upto date nor he paid the house tax levelled by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, further, it was alleged by the landlady that the premises in dispute were let out for residential purposes but the tenant has started work of weaving by installing a handloom in room March 'A' shown in the site plan. The premises in dispute are also required by the petitioner-landlady for her personal use and occupation.

(3.) The said petition was contested by the tenant who denied the allegations. According to the tenant, he took the premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month and he paid the rent at this rate upto November, 1980. The petitioner never issued the receipt to him. The petition is not bom fide as the petitioner wanted to enhance the rent. Respondent tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month from 1.8.1972 to 31.12.1980 in order to avoid the risk of ejectment. The premises in dispute were not rented out to him for any specific purpose and that he had not changed the user of the premises in dispute. The premises in dispute are also not required by the petitioner for her personal use and occupation. Finally, the tenant denied all the allegations of the petitioner and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.