J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The land lord petitioners have filed this petition against the order of the Appellate Authority Chandigarh, dated 14th Sept., 1970, whereby their appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller dismissing their application for ejectment was maintained.
(2.) The premises in dispute consisted of Shop cum-Flat No. 20 in Sector 18-C, Chandigarh. Application for the eviction was filed on 9th Feb., 1973 with the allegations that Dr. Kirpal Singh was the previous owner of the building. He had given this building on rent to the respondent-tenant Om Parkash Aggarwal at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month vide rent-note dated 1st Jan., 1960, Ex. R 1. Earlier a civil suit for ejectment was filed by Dr. Kirpal Singh as the Urban Rent Restriction Act was not applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. However, that suit was decreed on 12th Jan., 1973, but the decree could not be executed because meanwhile the Urban Rent Restriction Act had come into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh During the pendency of that suit, the building in dispute was sold by Dr. Kirpal Singh to Shri Jasbir Singh, present landlord, who has filed the present application for ejectment in the original application, various grounds were pleaded for the ejectment of the tenant, inter alia that the building has been used for a purpose other than that for which it was let out, i.e. the flat portion of the building was rented out to the respondent for the purpose of residence only and the shop portion was leased out for commercial purposes, whereas the flat portion is being used as store by the respondent. It was also pleaded that the premises were bona fide required for personal use and occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant it was stated that the respondent is using the premises for the purposes for which these were lot out as per rent-note executed by the respondent Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal in favour of petitioner No. 2, i.e. Dr. Kirpal Singh and the respondent is carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Om Parkash Aggarwal. Hard-were and Paint Merchants. It was further denied that the respondent has caused any change or using the premises or passage for the purpose other than that for which 8 as rented out. It was specifically stated that 'It is pertinent to point out that rent-note as executed by the respondent in favour of petitioner No. 2 is silent about the purposes for which the premises were let out, therefore, it is categorically denied that the flat portion was let for residence, as alleged." bona fide requirement of the landlord for his personal use and occupation was a so denied. However, on the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:- 1. Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent ? 2. Whether Chanan Singh through whom the petition has been riled is competent to bring the petition on behalf of the petitioners ? 3. Whether the tender of arrears of rent etc. was invalid ? 4. What was the purpose for which the building in question was let out ? 5. Whether the building has been used for a purpose other than that for which it was let out ? 6. Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the building ? 7. Whether the Petitioner No. 1 requires the building for his own occupation ? 8. Whether the decision referred to in para 4 of the plaint operates as res judicata between the parties? If so, on what matters and with what effect ? The Rent Controller dismissed the application deciding all the issues against the landlord. On issue No. 4, it was held by the Rent Controller that he was not pursuaded to hold that the building in question was let out for a composite purpose of residence and business and It has to be held that on the evidence on record that it was 'let out for purpose of business alone". Consequently, it was held on issue No. 5 that the building has not ben used for purpose other than that for which it was let out. As regards bona fide requirement of the landlord it was held that the landlord has not been able to prove that the premises ire bona fide required for his own use and occupation. In appeal, the Appellate Authority has maintained-these findings of fact and consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the landlord Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent finding of both the Authorities below, that landlord has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the landlord vehemently contended that both the authorities below have wrongly held that the building has not been used for the purpose other than that for which it was let out. The finding of the Authorities below on Issue No. 7 regarding bona fide requirement of the landlord for personal use and occupation was also challenged. A reference was made to the rent-note Ex. R-1, in which it has been stated vat the tenant will not violate any of the conditions of the Capital of Punjab Development and Regulation Act, 1952, and in case any of the condition is violated or the rent is not paid in advance, the tenant will be liable for ejectment. Reference to Chhaju Ram Vs. Tulsi Dass and another, I.L.R. (1977) 2 Punjab and Haryana 177 , was also made for the proposition that where the premises were rented out as a Shop but were being used as a godown, it was held that they are being used for a purpose to her than the one for which they were let out and the landlord earns a right to evict the tenant.;