Back
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 1985, D/- 17-7-1987.
Vinod Kumar Arora, Appellant
Versus
Smt. Surjit Kaur, Respondent.
Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1954 – Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a), (e) - East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1982 - Section 11 - Landlady - Tenant - Leased Premises - Recovery Of Possession - Pertains to a contest between a widowed landlady seeking recovery of possession of a leased premises for residential needs of herself and her sons and daughter on one hand and as young medical practitioner on other wanting to continue his medical practice in premises without being evicted therefrom - Rent Controller and Appellate Authority declined to pass an order of eviction in favour of respondent - Whether appellant had changed user of hall by running a clinic and had thereby rendered himself liable for eviction on that ground - Whether High Court had erred in exercise of its revisional powers in (a) setting aside concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority that respondent was not bona fide in need of hall for her residential use and (b) ignoring findings of Rent Controller and appellate authority that appellant had not changed user of hall from residential to non-residential purposes and, as such, he cannot be evicted on ground of mis-user of hall - Whether High Court has failed to note that in view of concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority that hall must be deemed to have been let out for a non-residential purpose, to wit, running a clinic, appellant will not be entitled to seek recovery of possession under S. 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of Act for her residential occupation - Whether appellant had changed user of hall from residential to non-residential purposes - Whether conversion. of a residential premises into a non-residential one without permission of Rent Controller was permissible under Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act and if it was not permitted, how far contravention would affect rights of parties - Whether appellant had changed user of hall by running a clinic and had thereby rendered himself liable for eviction on that ground – Held, Landlord cannot be barred from seeking recovery of possession of leased building for his residential needs – Court is therefore of view that findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority about appellant having taken hall on lease only for running a clinic and that he had not changed user of premises have been rendered without reference to pleadings and without examining legality of appellants contentions in light of Section 11 of Act - Court find that events which have taken place subsequently, give added force to decision rendered by High Court - Eviction proceedings against other tenant have ended in favour of respondent and she has filed affidavits before this Court to state that she has re-occupied the portion leased out to tenant - Occupation of a portion of house by respondent places her claim for recovery of possession of hall on a better footing - This is because of fact hall does not have an attached bath room or water closet - Consequently appellant and patients visiting his clinic are also making use of common bathroom and toilet in house - This would not only cause inconvenience to members of respondents family but would also expose them to risk of infection from patients using bath room and toilet during their visit to appellants clinic - Respondent will be fully justified in asking for eviction of appellant from the hall let out to him - In order to enable the appellant to secure alternate accommodation for shifting his clinic he is granted time to vacate premises subject to condition he files an undertaking in usual terms within three weeks from today failing which respondent will be entitled to recover possession in terms of judgment and decree of High Court - Appeal dismissed.
Judgement
NATARAJAN, J. :- This appeal by special leave against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana pertains to a contest between a widowed landlady seeking recovery of possession of a leased premises for the residential needs of herself and her sons and daughter on the one hand and as young medical practitioner on the other wanting to continue his medical practice in the premises without being evicted therefrom. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority declined to pass an order of eviction in favour of the respondent but the High Court has reversed their judgments and directed eviction and hence the present appeal by special leave by the tenant.
2. One lqbal Singh, the deceased husband of the respondent was the owner of house No. 16, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh. He leased out the entire portion of the house except a big hall to one Kuldeep Singh on May 27, 1977. Iqbal Singh died in the year 1980 and on 1-4-1981, his widow viz. the respondent leased out the hall to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/-. The lease was for a period of 11 months. The terms of the lease were reduced, to writing but the deed was not registered.
3. The respondent filed two applications more or less concurrently (one on 2-2-82 and the other on 3-2-82) against the tenants of both the portions of the house viz. Kuldeep Singh and the appellant. The eviction of both the tenants was sought for on the same grounds viz., they had changed the user of the premises to non-residential purposes and secondly the respondent bona fide required the premises for her own occupation. In addition, in so far as the appellant is concerned, his eviction was also sought for on the ground of default in payment of rent from 1-5-81 onwards. It may be mentioned here that the respondent has three grown up sons and a grown up daughter. During the pendency of the proceedings the size of the family increased to seven members due to the eldest son getting married and begetting a child. The respondents husband has been allotted a Government quarters and after his death the allotment was changed to the name of the eldest son viz. Gurcharanjit Singh who has been examined as A.W. 2 in the case.
4. The appellant remitted the entire arrears of rent together with interest, costs etc. on the first day of the hearing of the case and hence the prayer for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent did not survive for consideration. As regards the other two grounds the appellant as well as Kuldeep Singh contended that they had not changed the user of the respective portions let out to them and secondly the respondent was in occupation of a government quarters and did not, therefore, bona fide require the leased premises for her residence. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority held that Kuldeep Singh had changed the user of the premises and ordered his eviction but in so far as the appellant is concerned, both the Authorities found against the respondent on both the grounds and dismissed the action for eviction.
5. Against the order of the Appellate Authority two revision petitions, one by the tenant Kuldeep Singh and the other by the respondent were preferred to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision preferred by Kuldeep Singh and allowed the revision filed by the respondent and ordered the eviction of the appellant too. While Kuldeep Singh has abided by the order of eviction and surrendered possession to the respondent of the portion leased to him, the appellant has come to this Court to impugn the order of the High Court directing his eviction.
6. Before we enter into the merits of the case, it is relevant to state that the High Court went only into the question of the bona fide requirement of the hall by the respondent for her residential use and did not go into the question whether the appellant had changed the user of the hall by running a clinic and had thereby rendered himself liable for eviction on that ground also. The High Court was of th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
