- (1.) This order will dispose of two connected petitions (Civil Revisions 210 and 211 of 1972 under section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . Smt. Maha Devi, the owner of the premises in dispute, is the petitioner in both the cases. Ram Richhpal tenant is also common to both the cases. Two separate petitions for ejectment were filed before the Rent Controller because the ground-floor of the building in question was let out to the respondent at Rs. 800/-per annum on October 23, 1950, and the first-floor was subsequently let out to him in October, 1954, at Rs. 150/- per annum. The claim of the petitioner in respect of the ground-floor was that the said premises were residential and were given for residence, and that even if the premises could he held to have been let out for the purposes of godown, the same were being misused and had been sublet by the tenant, and were personally required by the petitioner. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority negatived the petitioner's claim for ejectment from the ground floor. Concurrent findings of fact were recorded about the premises having been let out for business, about the same being in fact a shop and not residential premises, and no case of subletting or misuse having been made out. I am unable to interfere with those findings of fact. Civil Revision 211 of 1912, which has been filed against the judgment of affirmance given by the Appellate Authority in respect of the ground-floor, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed, though without any order as to costs.
(2.) In her application for ejectment from the admittedly residential portion of the first-floor of the building, the petitioner was successful before the, Rent Controller. The tenant respondent's appeal against that order was allowed by Shri B.S. Yadav, Appellate Authority Rohtak. Aggrieved by the same she has filed Civil Revision 1210 of 1972, for reversal of that order and for substituting therefore the decision of the Rent Controller. While reversing the order of Shri P.L. Sanghi, the learned Rent Controller, strictures have been passed against his judgment by the Appellate Authority. After going through the case and bearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of view that the strictures passed by the Appellate Authority were not unjustified. The ground of non-payment of Rent admittedly ceased to hold the field as the arrears of rent were paid out. In fact that ground is not being pressed any more. The only ground on which ejectment was allowed by the Rent Controller from the first-floor premises and which is being vehemently pressed by Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that of requirement for personal use and occupation. All the arguments that were advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority have been reinforced and reiterated before me. The findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority on this part of the petitioner's case are that : (i) The petitioner was herself in occupation of the first floor premises till October, 1954, and that the same were vacated by her and let out to the respondent; (ii) No part of the premises on the first floor has been sublet by the tenant; (iii) The Rent Controller having himself held in so many words that though be had doubt if the petitioner bona fide required the upper portion of the house for her own occupation, he had allowed her application in view of certain rulings before him, it was not open to him pass an order for ejectment as no ejectment could be allowed unless the Rent Controller was satisfied that the landlord required the premises bona fide for personal use. Not having been so satisfied, the Rent Controller should have dismissed the claim for ejectment from the first-floor also; (iv) P. W. 2 Panna, Lal and R. W. 6 Kashmiri Lal on whose evidence reliance was being placed by the petitioner were not reliable witnesses and their t,evidence deserved no credit; (v) Kashmir Lal husband of the petitioner was employed at Delhi for the previous 25 or 30 years with Messrs Bhanna Mal Gulzari Lal who had given a house to the petitioner's husband which was in occupation of the petitioner; and (vi) It was proved from the statement of the petitioner herself that the rent of the premises used to be realised on her behalf by mange Ram P. W. 1.
(3.) Counsel has stressed all the points again before me and has tried to prevail, upon me to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court. After carefully listening to the learned counsel and considering all the arguments advanced by him to have not been able to find any illegality or impropriety in the order of the Appellate Authority. I have therefore, no hesitation in affirming the same. Civil Revision 210 of 1972, also therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.;