JUDGMENT

RAY, J.— Special leave granted. Arguments heard.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 1238 of 1989 : (reported in 1990 Har Rent R 362) reversing the order of the appellate authority, Chandigarh, dated December 24, 1988 in Rent Appeal No. 29 of 1987, reversing the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 16th February, 1987 in Case No. 124 of 1985.

3. The matrix of the case in short is as follows. The petitioner landlady (respondent in this appeal), Ms. Chandra Kanta Khosla leased out the demised premises being House No. 382, Sector-30A, Chandigarh, at a monthly rent of Rs. 1100/-, on the basis of a rent note dated 19th May, 1978. It has been specifically stated in the lease deed that the demised premises were to be used for residential purpose only and the tenant will not sublet the premises or any part thereof and application for eviction of the tenant (appellant in this appeal) was filed on the ground that the tenant had not paid or tendered rent with effect from December 1, 1984, and that the tenant had changed the. user of the demised premises and had set up a printing press under the name and style of "M/s.Navneet Parkashan" in the garage and two rooms of the demised premises. It has also been alleged that the tenant used the demised premises for the purpose other than that for which it was let out and the landlady required the demised premises for her own use and occupation as she had no other alternative accommodation in the city. This application was filed before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh for terminating the tenancy of the tenant respondent by issuing a notice. The tenant controverted the allegations made in the eviction petition and pleaded that M/s. Navneet Parkashan was a necessary party to the eviction petition. It was further pleaded that the disputed premises were admittedly rented out to him for running the printing press under the name and style of "M/s. Navnect Parkashan" of which he was the sole proprietor. The execution of the rent note dated 19th May, 1978 was admitted, but it was pleaded that the rent note being not registered it could not create any right in favour of the landlady. It had also been pleaded that the landlady had been accepting rent on behalf of MiIs. Navneet Parkashan land as such she could not dispute that the latter was not a tenant in respect of the demised premises from the very beginning. had also been stated that the major portion or the demised. premises was being used for office and printing press.

4. On these pleadings of the parties, three issues had been framed i.e.

(a) Whether the tenant had changed the use of the premises in dispute for a purpose other than that for which it was let out.

(b) Whether the landlady requires the premises bona fide for her personal use and occupation.

(c) Whether the premises was let out to M/s . Navneet Parkashan as alleged.

The trial Court considered issues Nos. 1 and 3 and disposed of the same in favour of the landlady by holding that the premises were let out to the tenant and not to M/s. Navneet Parkashan. It was also held that the demised premises were used for the purpose other than that for which it was let out. It was also held that the landlady had sufficient accommodation in her possession as she was residing in House No. 153, Sector-9B, Chandigarh, in which she was a co-owner.

5. On appeal the appellate authority held that the demised premises were not let out for residential purposes but it was let out for running the printing press under the name and style of M,/s. Navneet Parkashan and the tenant did not change the user of the demised premises and thus reversed the findings of the Rent Controller under issues Nos. 1 and 3. The appellate authority further found that the landlady did not require the premises bona fide for her own use and occupation.

6. Against this judgment and order of the appellate aut