Tarsem Kumar and Another vs Charanji Lal and Another

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

The disputed premises consisted of a shop on the ground floor and a Chobara, a courtyard and a latrine on the first floor. It was alleged by the landlords that tenant Charanji Lal is residing on the first floor while the business was being carried on in the shop on the ground floor of the disputed building. The eviction was sought, inter alia, on the ground of personal requirement of the premises by the landlord. In the written statement it was pleaded that the disputed premises is a shop and a commercial building and was wrongly described as a shop-cum-flat in the ejectment application and that the same is being used for business purposes only being a commercial building. Chobara is a part of the commercial building and is being used as a store of the shop ever since the tenancy started Charanji Lal sometimes stayed in the Chobara during the night to guard the store especially when sufficient cash was kept there. There was no kitchen or bath room in premises and the property being commercial could not be got vacated for personal necessity.

Learned Rent Controller found that the landlords have failed to show that the Chobara of the disputed premises was being used as residence by Charanji Lal Respondent. Since the premises were held to be a non-residential building, the same could not be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity though it was found that the landlords required it bonafide. In view of these findings the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller holding that the building was commercial one and, therefore, could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement. It was further found that the landlords have failed to prove their bonafide requirement as well. In view of these findings, the order rejecting the ejectment application was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this petition in this Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that Charanji Lal tenant has admitted that he was residing in the Chobara over the shop in dispute. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, once it is found that he was residing therein, the building could not be said to be commercial one.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record. I find no merit in this petition. The conduct of the landlords speaks for itself. Admittedly, there was a rent note dated 15-12-1967 executed between the parties which was in possession of the landlords. At one stage, it was agreed by the landlords, to produce the same but lateron it was stated that the same has been lost. The non-production of the rent note goes along way to show that the premises were let out only for commercial purposes and the same are being used as such. Not only that there is evidence on the record that at present the tenants are residing in house No. 532 in Mohalla Dhob Ghat, Patiala. Thus, it has been rightly held by the authorities below that Charanji Lal stayed there during the night to guard the store etc. especially when sufficient cash was kept there. Thus, in view of these concurrent findings of both the authorities below, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.