RAJ RANI Vs. JAI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlady's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlady Raj Rani Aggarwal sought the ejectment of her tenant Jai Kishan from the premises, in dispute, which consist of one room and a store on the ground floor of the residential building inter alia on the ground that she bona fide required the same for her own use and occupation. It was also alleged that he had changed the user of the premises from the residential to the non-residential. She also averred that she had purchased the house of which the demised premises formed a part, from the earlier owner Shrimati Jiwani on May 10, 1977. The arrears of rent were claimed for the period from May 10, 1977 to May 9, 1978, at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was submitted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the premises were taken on rent from Shrimati Jiwani at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month in the year 1970. Thereafter the rent thereof was increased to Rs. 10/- per month with effect from January 1, 1976. It was further stated that the premises, in question, were non-residential as the same were let out for commercial purposes and, therefore, the same could not be got vacated for her personal necessity by the landlady. The arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month were tendered on the first date of hearing. The learned Rent Controller found that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the premises, in dispute, were non-residential one and that the same could not be got vacated for her personal necessity by the landlady. It was also found that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month and not Rs. 25/- per month, as claimed by her. In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the premises, in dispute, formed a part of the residential building which was purchased by the landlady on May 10, 1977, and, therefore even if it be assumed that the same were let out for non-residential purposes, the landlady was entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant therefrom on the ground of her personal requirement. According to the learned counsel, the premises, in dispute, did not cease to be residential merely because the same were let out for non-residential purposes. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh, (1980) 1 Rent CR 530 (Punj and Har).