J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE tenant -Petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated 25th April, 1979, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the application for ejectment has been set aside and the tenant has been directed to vacate the premises.
(2.) SARVSHRI Amar Singh and Jagdish Singh claimed to be owners and landlords of House No. 193, Sector 19 -A, situated in Chandigarh. This house was let out to Kamal Arora at monthly rent of Rs. 550/ - exclusive of water and electricity charges. Earlier, the house was given to Avinash Arora, brother of Kamal Arora, tenant -Petitioner for residential purposes. The ejectment is being claimed on the ground that the house was required by the landlords for their own use and occupation and secondly that the house was let out only for residential purposes but the tenant was running school and college in the tenanted premises and therefore, the building has been used for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. The application was contested by the tenant. In the written statement it was denied for want of knowledge that the landlords were the owners of the house. However, it was admitted that they had let out the premises at a monthly rental rate of Rs. 550/ - exclusive of water and electricity charges but it was rented for non -residential purposes i.e. for running of school and college. It was further pleaded that he had been using the same for such non -residential purpose by running an institution known as Tagore Niketan College from the very beginning. It was further pleaded that since the building was let out for nonresidential purposes and the same was being used for such purposes, the ground of personal necessity was not available to the landlords for eviction of the tenant. However, 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? OPA 2. Whether the premises are being used for a purpose other than for which they were leased out OPA Whether the tenancy has been determined by a valid notice? OPA
(3.) RELIEF . 3. It was held by the Rent Controller that the premises were let out for a non -residential purpose and therefore, the tenant did not change its use. On the ground of bona fide requirements for personal occupation the finding was against the landlords and consequently the application was dismissed. In appeal filed on behalf of the landlords, the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the house in dispute was let out to Shri Kamal Arora, for residence initially. This finding has been arrived at by the Appellate Authority after discussing the evidence on the record but it has been further held that from the receipts produced on the record by the tenant it is clear that the premises were being used for non -residential purposes with the consent of the landlords. Thus, it has been observed that "It can safely be said that they had acquiesced in the user of premises as such. These receipts would amount to consent in writing on the part of the landlord for such a user. On this ground the tenant will not be liable to be ejected under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act." Since the premises were held to be rented out initially for residence, the same was held to fee a residential building and not a non -residential building and consequently the landlords were entitled to seek ejectment on the bona fide requirement for their personal use and occupation. After discussing the evidence on the record, on this point, the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that "Obviously three rooms for a family of 11 members would be highly insufficient. I hold accordingly. The landlords have thus succeeded in establishing the ground of personal necessity. The landlords bona fide require the premises for their own use and occupation." Feeling aggrieved against this order, the tenant has come up in revision. 4. Learned Counsel for the tenant vehemently argued that (i) Earlier tenancy in favour of Avinash Arora from 1970 to September 1973, is not at all relevant for the purposes of the present dispute and therefore, no inference could be drawn against the Petitioner from the fact that it was given for residential purposes to Avinash Arora; (ii) from the very beginning of the tenancy, the premises in dispute were rented for non -resident al purposes and therefore, the premises cannot be termed as residential building; (iii) in any case, even if it was given for residence to Kamal Arora in October 1973, the rented premises are being used for a non -residential purpose with the consent of the landlord and since then it has ceased to be a residential building; and (iv) that whole evidence on the record has not been considered by the Appellate Authority in order to come to. the conclusion whether it was let out for residential purposes or not.;