Landlords are entitled to seek eviction based on personal necessity and change of user, and tenant's unauthorized use undermines property value, justifying eviction.

Judgment :

Archana Puri, J.

The petitioners-tenant have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act , thereby, assailing the order dated 27.07.2010 as well as order dated 05.11.2010, passed by the Courts below, thereby, ordering eviction of the petitioners-tenant.

2. The essential facts, to be noticed, in nutshell are as follows:-

That, respondents-landlords had filed the ejectment petition thereby, asserting that they are owners of SCO No.409-410, Sector-35C, Chandigarh and the petitioners are the tenants in the basement portion, on the monthly rent of Rs.1800/- per month. Besides the same, they were also liable to pay the water and electricity charges, in advance on 7th day of each English calendar month. Therein, it was also asserted that initially, the landlords filed petition for seeking ejectment of the tenant, which was since withdrawn, on account of gazette notification having issued by the government.

3. Suffice to consider that the landlords had filed the petition for seeking eviction of the tenant, thereby, asserting that they are not in occupation of spacious commercial accommodation in basement floor nor they had vacated any such premises, after commencement of the Act, within the urban area of Chandigarh. As such, the five landlords intend to augment their income by commencing business of general store, pertaining to computer, communication and information technology, for which the basement floor was ideal. Furthermore, they asserted that the upper story did not have the equivalent space and they also fetched higher rent. They require small area for customer dealing on upper floor and larger area was required for storage purposes in the basement. Since, the basement attracted lesser tenants on cheaper rates, the landlords did not consider it economically viable to occupy the upper stories.

4. In the petition, the landlords also asserted about the manner, in which, the landlords were carrying on their work and that another landlord Anmol Sidhu had left for Canada to manage his affairs, till the demised premises is vacated. Further averments were made about the prime location of the demised premises and also about the occupation of the portion of upper stories, to be not commercially viable, as business would not yield good income initially. Besides the necessity for bonafide use and occupation of the landlords, the respondents-landlords had also asserted about the basement floor which was meant for storage and godown, being used by the tenant for the purposes of shop, contrary to the terms and conditions of the allotment as well as the rent agreement and on account of misuse by the tenant, the Estate Officer cancelled the lease and the landlord were preferring an appeal before the Chief Administrator. The tenant had no right to misuse the premises, as it would affect the title of the landlords. The use of the premises by the tenant, as such, had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises and also the entire building, in which the premises was situated. Cancellation of lease deed would reduce the value of the building drastically and invite action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, depriving the landlords of the rent. The tenants were also sought to be evicted, on the ground of change of user and non-payment of rent.

5. Upon notice, the tenant made appearance and filed reply, thereby, raising preliminary objections, with regard to the maintainability of the petition, suppression of material facts, estoppel, cause of action, misjoinder of landlords No.2 and 3. Besides the same, also assertion was made about the dismissal of the previous ren