Smt Rajeshwari Devi vs Chander Sarup

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlady''s petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the Authorities below.

The landlady sought the ejectment of her tenant from the two rooms on the first floor of the residential building consisting of 10 rooms. She purchased the house in dispute in the year 1976. The ejectment application was filed on 2nd November 1979, inter alia on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1st December, 1978 to 31st November, 1979 together with House Tax amounting to Rs. 78.62 and that the landlady bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant. It was pleaded that the rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month was only payable, which included the House Tax as well As regards the bona fide requirement, it was pleaded that the accommodation in possession of the land-lady was sufficient and thus she did not bona fide require the premises for her own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller found that there was no evidence on the record for warranting a conclusion that the tenant had to pay House Tax over and above the rent of Rs. 15/- per month. Thus it was held that the rate of rent of the house in dispute was Rs. 15/- per month including the House Tax On the question of arrears of rent, the learned Rent Controller held that since on the first date of hearing arrears of rent were tendered, the tenant was not liable to be ejected on that ground. On the question of bona fide requirement, the learned Rent Controller held that the landlady had failed to prove by any cogent and convincing evidence that she bona fide required the house in dispute for her personal use and occupation. The other grounds were also negatived. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the learned Rent Controller and thus maintained the order rejecting the application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has filed this petition in this Court.

At the time of motion hearing it was stated that the tenant admitted in earlier proceedings that the rent was Rs. 15/- per month without House Tax.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that from the pleadings of the parties in this case as well as in the earlier proceedings in the Civil Court it had been amply proved that the House Tax was to be paid separately over and above the rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month After going through the pleadings and the documents, I do not find any force in this contention. The tenant nowhere admitted that he was liable to pay House Tax over and above the rent of Rs. 15/- per month. His case throughout has been that a sum of Rs. 15/- included the House Tax as well. Thus it has been rightly held by both the Authorities below that a sum of Rs. 15/-, which was being paid is rent, included the House Tax also.

It was next contended that there were 15 members of the family, including the family of her husband''s brother who had died. Thus it was argued chat it had been wrongly held that the requirement was not bona fide.

I hare gone through the statement of the husband of the landlady Mahabir Parshad (A. W. 1). It has come in the evidence that there are 10 rooms in the building in dispute. Out of these ten rooms, the tenant is occupying only two rooms, whereas the remaining accommodation is in the occupation of the landlady. Thus from the evidence it could not be shown that the landlady bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation. In any case, on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been held that the need of the landlady was not genuine, and I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the said finding of the Authorities below.

Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.