Sumitra Devi vs Arjan Dass Arora and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlady''s petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below, Smt. Sumitra Devi filed an ejectment application on 26th July, 1979 for ejectment of the tenant from the portion of house No. situated within the municipal limits of Abohar. The said house was given on rent to the tenant Arjan Dass earlier by Amir Chand, who was the owner of the house in dispute. He died on 12th December, 1977 and on her death the Petitioner being his daughter and Respondent No. 5 Smt. Parsanni Devi being his widow succeeded to the property and thus became land-ladies. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the tenant had sublet the house in dispute to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4; that the house in question was given for residential purposes but the tenants have changed the building for the purpose of manufacturing washing soap without the consent of the landlord ; that the entire building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the land-lady required the premises for her personal use and occupation as she has no other house in the urban area concerned and at present she was residing in the rented house.

The application was contested on the ground that the demised premises, were rented out for using the same for manufacruring the soap and thus there was no change of user. It was denied that the land-lady bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation and moreover the premises having been rented out for commercial purposes could not be vacated on this ground. All these pleas were negatived by the Rent Controller. On the question of bona fide requirement it was held that since the premises were let out for business purposes, the land-lady was not entitled to seek ejectment on the ground that she bona fide required the same for her own use and occupation. Consequently ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned appellate authority confirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order dismissing the application. Dissatisfied with the same the land-lady has filed this revision petition in this Court.

At the time of motion hearing it was contended that the building in dispute which is admittedly a residential building, continues to be residential even if it was rented out for business purposes. Reliance was placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in Shri Hari Mittal v. Shri B.M. Sikka (1986) 89 P.L.R. 1 (F.B.).

In view of the said Full Bench judgment it is no more disputed -that the landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of his tenant from the house in dispute even if it was let out for business purposes

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record I find that the bona fide requirement of the land-lady to occupy the demised premises is fully proved on the record. It was no more disputed that the land lady was residing at present in a rented premises and the said accommodation was insufficient to meet he requirement. Moreover, it is the case of the tenant himself that he is not only doing the business of soap manufacturing but is also residing therein. Thus it is quite evident that the building is a residential one for all intents and purposes. In view of this finding the other grounds need not be gone into. Consequently this petition succeeds, the impugned orders are set aside and eviction order is passed against the tenant Arjan Dass and his sons Respondents. However, they are allowed 3 months time to vacate the premises provided the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month from today with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period of 3 months vacant possession will be handed over to the land-lady and the rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.