Bansi Lal vs Dharam Singh

G.R. Majithia, J.—The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar confirming, on appeal, the order of the Rent Controller, Nawashahr ordering his eviction from the demised premises.

The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ''Landlord'') sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that he was owner of a two storeyed house situate at Banga Town. About eight years back, he had rented out a room and a kitchen on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- for residential purposes to the tenant. He required the demised premises for his own use and occupation since the accommodation in his possession was insufficient for his needs. His family consists of five members and out of them, his grand daughter is studying in the fifth class. Although the demised premises were let out for residential purposes, yet the tenant has changed the user by starting tailoring business without oral or written consent.

The tenant admitted the rate of rent, but denied that the demised premises were taken for residential purposes and pleaded that he was doing tailoring business under the name and style of M/s V.K. and Company and was making brassieres He also denied that the landlord bonafide needed the demised premises for his own use and occupation.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : --

Whether the petitioner requires the premises in question for bona fide use and occupation ? OPP

Whether the respondent has changed the use of the premises for the purpose other than that it was let out ? OPP

Whether the petition is not bona fide OPP

Relief.

The learned Appellate Authority, after perusal of the evidence, gave a firm finding that the demised premises is part of a double storeyed house situated in a street. On the ground floor, a room and a kitchen was in possession of the tenant. On the first, floor, a room and a kitchen and a covered verandah was under the tenancy of Didar Singh and he and the landlord were using their respective portions for residential purposes. The demised-premises was let out to the tenant for residential purposes It was further found that the landlord bona fide required the demissed premises for his own use and occupation.

The learned counsel for the tenant submitted that a part of the demised premises was being used for commercial purposes by the tenant and demised premises ceased to be residential premises.

I am not impressed with the submission made The Appellate Authority, on evidence, found that the demised premises is a part of double storeyed house situated in a street and that on the first floor a room a kitchen and a verandah were leased out to one Didar Singh which were undisputably being used for residential purpose. The nature and location of the building indicates that it is situated in a street in Banga Town, and it can only be used for residential purpose. The tenant did not deny that initially the demised premises were leased out to him for residential purposes Even if he had subsequently converted a part of the demised premises for commercial purposes His eviction can be ordered under the provisions of Section 13(2)(ii)(d) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 The tenant has used the building other than that for which it was let out to him. It is not the plea of the tenant that he had converted the user of the demised premises from residential to commercial with the consent of the landlord.

The Appellate Authority, on appraisal of the evidence, found that the landlord was in possession of only two rooms, a covered verandah and a store and kitchen. His family, excluding himself, consists of three adult members and one minor child who is studying The accommodation in possession of the landlord was found to be insufficient to meet his needs and that the landlord bona fide required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The plea of the tenant that the landlord has not sought the eviction of Didar Singh who is occupying a portion on the first floor, was negatived on the ground that it was for the landlord to decide which accommodation will be more suitable for him to live comfortably. It essentially a finding of fact and I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Appallate Authority.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is dismissed with no or(sic)er as to costs. However, the petitioner is allowed three months'' time to vacate the demised premises, provided (i) he gives an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month from today that on the expiry of the period allowed for vacating the demise premises, he will surrender peaceful possession to the landlord; and (iii) he will deposit the arrears of rent up to date with the Rent Controller within one month from today.