ASHOK BHAN, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition filed by the tenant arises out of the following facts:
(2.) RESPONDENT - landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed the ejectment petition against the tenant from House No. 4613 Gali Ghugan within the urban area of Municipal Committee, Fazilka. It was averred that the petitioner along with his two brothers were owners of the house in dispute and two other houses bearing No. 1542 and 1552, situated in Gali Bhagat Ram Monga, Tehsil Fazilka. Family settlement dated 27. 12. 1981 took place between the parties and the landlord became the exclusive owner of the House No. 4613. That the house in dispute was in occupation of the tenant at yearly rent of Rs. 500/- and that the tenant had not paid the rent w. e. f. 3. 6. 1975 till the date of filing of the application. The ejectment was sought on the following grounds : (a) That the tenant was a wilful and chronic defaulter who defaulted in making the payment of arrears of rent w. e. f. 3. 6. 1975 till the date of filing of the application at the rate of Rs. 500/- per annum; that the tenant did not pay the rent in spite of the several demands created to him; (b) that the landlord required the demised premises bona fide for him as well as for the occupation of his family members; that the landlord was residing with his family consisting of his wife and four children who were college/school going along with his brother Joginder Paul. Joginder Pal also had two children and the total building in occupation of both the bothers in which they were residing consists of three bed rooms, two drawing rooms, two balconies; that the landlord was living at the mercy of his brother ; that he did not own any other house in the urban area of the City Fazilka and that he had not vacated any such house without sufficient cause after the commencement of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); (c) that the tenant was guilty of causing material and strictural alterations in the demised premises thereby clearly impairing the value and utility of the demised premises; (d) that the tenant without permission of the landlord got installed water pipes and electricity connection in the demised premises by digging up and damaging the walls and earth which led to the deterioration both in the condition of building as well as in its value and utility; (2) that the building had outlived its utility and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and consequently requires reconstruction. After getting it vacated, the landlord shall reconstruct it to put his own residence in it. Notice of this application was given. Tenant filed his written statement denying all the allegations in the petition and stated that the rent was Rs. 17/- per month - Replication was also filed. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 2. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of para 4 of the petition ? OPA 3. What is the rate of rent ? Onus on parties. 4. Relief.
(3.) BEFORE the Rent Controller, grounds (a) and (c) to (e) for ejectment were not passed by the learned counsel for the landlord at the time of arguments was that the landlord required the premises in dispute for his own as well as the occupation of his family members. Rent Controller decided the issue regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord against him. It was held that the family settlement had not been proved regarding partition. Issue No. 3 regarding rent was also decided against the landlord and in favour of the tenant. The petition for ejectment was ordered to be dismissed. Landlord filed an appeal against the order of the Recent Controller. No arguments were addressed on issue No. 1. No arguments were addressed on grounds (a), (d) and (e) for ejectment of the tenant before the Appellate Court. Before the Appellate Court grounds (b) and (c) were pressed. Both these grounds were accepted by the appellate authority. It was held that the landlord required the premises for his bona fide use and occupation and that the tenant was guilty of causing material and structural alterations in the demised premises. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and order of ejectment was passed against the tenant.;