Gurbax Rai Sood vs Karnal Singh

J.V Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition whose ejectment application has been distrusted by both the authorities below.

2 Landlord Gurbux Rai Sood sought the ejectment of his tenant Karnail Singh from the building, in dispute, on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent since January 1, 1978 along with house-tax at the enhanced rate of 2-1/2% due from April. 1977 till the date of the filing of the ejectment application, i.e, January 3, 1979. It was also pleaded that Rs. 2,000/- were due as the arrears of rent upto December 31, 1977 as the rent was Rs 195/- per month. According to the landlord, the premises were let out for residential purposes but the same were being used for hosiery business. Therefore, the tenant was liable to be ejected there from on the ground of change of user also. In addition, the landlord also claimed that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The arrears of rent from January, 1978 to February, 1979, were tendered with interest on the date of the first hearing. However, as regards the arrears of Rs. 2,000/, it was pleaded that nothing was due from the tenant. The other allegations made by the landlord were also controverted. It was asserted that the premises were let out for commercial purposes and as such the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises, in dispute, were let out to the tenant for running the hosiery business, i.e , for non-residential purpose and not for residence as claimed by the landlord. In view of that finding, the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord was not gone into as the premises were held to be non-residential. The other pleas were also negatived consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that admittedly, the rent was Rs 195/- per month, but from the receipts produced by the tenant himself, it was clear that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was still due up to December 31, 1977, and that the findings of the authorities below, in this behalf, were wrong. The learned Counsel also contended that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide but the same has been negatived wrongly on the ground that the building was not residential as it was let out for hosiery business. According to the learned Counsel, the building, in question, it a residential one to all intents and purposes and even if it be assumed that hosiery business is carried on therein, the building still continues to be residential and the landlord is entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of his bona fide requirement. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shri Hari Mittal v. B.M Sikka (1986) 89 P.L.R. 1 (F.B.).

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

As regards the arrears of rent of Rs. 2,000/- claimed by the landlord, I do net find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below. Primarily, it is a finding of fact based on evidence On behalf of the landlord, receipts were being issued by Chander Mohan Sood and at that time it was never claimed that though the rent was paid, yet some balance was still due. In any case on the appreciation of the evidence, it has been found that there is no proof of the arrears of rent as on December 31,1977. Even if two views are possible this itself does not provide any ground for interference in the revisional jurisdiction

So far as the bona fide requirement of the landlord of the demised premises is concerned, the authorities did not go into the matter on the ground that the building could not be liable to be a residential one as the hosiery business was being carried on therein However, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shri Hari Mittal''s case (supra), if the building is a residential one to all intents and purposes, the mere fact that It was let cut for commercial purposes does not convert she building into a con-residential one. It will continue to be a residential building and the landlord is entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of his bona fide requirement to occupy the same. Since this matter has not been gone into by the authorities below, the case could be remanded for giving a finding on this issue, but on the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be advisable that the landlord may file a fresh application on the ground of his bona fide requirement of the premises Any finding given in the present ejectment application will be of no consequence for that purpose.

With these observations, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.