A landlord under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act can seek eviction for non-payment of rent and bonafide necessity, regardless of ownership status, as long as the landlord-tenant relationship is established.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.

This order shall dispose of four revision petitions titled above, as all of them are between same parties and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as “landlord” and “tenant”, i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1. Admittedly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-ll, Chandigarh was originally allotted to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corporation Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corporation through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (petitioner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side portion to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on enhanced to Rs. 8,500/-.

2.2. On 18.04.2006, Smt. Swaraj Katari entered into an agreement to sell (Ex.P-8) with Mr. Anoop Singh Gill — landlord (respondent herein) for consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-. She also executed irrevocable general power of attorney dated 17.04.2006 (Ex.P-9), affidavit dated 18.04.2006 (Ex.P-7) and Will dated 04.05.2009 (Ex.P-6) in favour of said Mr. Anoop Singh Gill. The power of attorney authorised him to manage the property, to collect rent from tenants and evict them as per law.

2.3. As per pleaded case of the landlord, Smt. Swaraj Katari vide letter dated 10.10.2006 informed the tenant (petitioner herein) to pay rent directly to landlord Mr. Anoop Singh Gill and also informing him that possession had been handed over to the said Mr. Gill.

3.1. The landlord Mr. Anoop Singh Gill instituted rent petition No. 24 of 2015 in January, 2015 before Rent Controller, Chandigarh, seeking ejectment of the tenants (petitioners herein) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act of 1949’), by submitting that by virtue of Attornment and complete sale, he had become owner/landlord of the demises premises.

3.2. It was pleaded that as per Chandigarh Sale of Sites and Building Rules, 1960, no site can be used for the purpose other than the purpose, for which it was allotted. It was alleged that respondents were tenants, who were using the premises for trading in electrical goods, which was against terms and conditions of allotment and on account of said violation, building can be resumed by Chandigarh Administration at any time. Petitioner had received a notice from CITCO regarding the violation, i.e. subletting to the respondents as well as the change of user. As such, it was alleged that change of the user of the tenanted premises, had also resulted into material impairment in its value and utility as the premises were meant for small scale industry. Request was made to the tenants to stop the misuse and remove the violation, but they refused to do so, compelling the landlord to file a suit for permanent injunction.

3.3. It was further the case of the landlord that condition of the entire industrial plot was dilapidated and as such, it was not fit for human habitation and so, it was required to be demolished and reconstructed.

3.4. Petitioner — landlord further pleaded that the entire industrial shed in question was required by him for his personal bonafide need and occupation, as he wanted to do the business in the same as per terms and conditions of the allotment alongwith his father. He wanted to demolish and reconstruct the building after due approval from the concerned authority for better utilization and smooth running of the business in the premises.

3.5. Thus, the ejectment of the tenants from demised premises was sought on the ground of change of user; material impairment of its value and utility of the premises; the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation; and also that of the bonafide necessity of landlord. It was also pleaded that tenants had not paid the rent w.e.f. August, 2007 onwards