J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 22nd Feb., 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application has been set aside and orders for eviction have been passed.
(2.) The premises in dispute is a part of the Shop cum Flat No. 52, sector 23-D, Chandigarh, and is set at a monthly rent of Rs. 200. According to the allegations of the landlord, the premises were leased out for residential purposes only and the tenant was also required not to make any additions or alterations in the premise; without the previous permission of the landlord. Ground of non-payment of arrears of rent was also taken and it was further stated that in violation of the conditions of the tenancy, the tenant had started preparing sweetmeats on the ground floor. Lastly, it was stated that the premises were required for her own use and occupation. The application was contested by the tenant-petitioner and the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing. It was also pleaded that the landlord had previously made an application under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against him. which was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide his order dared 31st May, 1974. on which account the present application was not maintainable. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether the premises are bona fide required for the personal use and occupation of the petitioner ? 2. Whether tenancy has been terminated by a valid notice, if not its effect ? 3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection No. 2 ? The learned Rent Controller found that the application was maintainable, but concluded that the landlord did not require the premises for her own use and occupation, and consequently, dismissed the application. On appeal, this finding of the Rent Controller has been set aside and it has been held that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for her own use and occupation. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the tenant petitioner has come up to this Court by way of this revision petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the notice issued by the landlord, Exhibit A 1, dated 9th April, 1973, the landlord never stated that she requires the premises for her own use and occupation, particularly when, her husband had died in the year 1969. He has further contended that now he is well settled and it is not the more wish of the landlord that it to prevail but it is for the authorities under the Act to find out whether the need of the landlord is a bona fide one. In support of his contention, he has cited Phiroze Bamanji Desai Vs. Chandrakant M. Patel and others, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 1059 ; Shri Rattan Chand Jain Vs. Shri Charan Singh 1978(1) R.C.R. 265 and R.K. Jain Vs. Khazan Singh, 1980 P Rs.R. 142 . The only evidence on the record order statement of the landlord has also been read in this Court in cider to show that no reasons have been given for her shifting from Panipat to Chandigarh. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the finding arrived at by the learned Rent Controller was correct and the Appellate Authority has acted illegally and improperly in setting aside that finding.;