J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) This is tenant's petition against whom order of eviction has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) Satwant Kaur, respondent sought the ejectment of Mukhtiar Singh,' tenant, from the demised premises which consists of a residential house No. 11-L, Model Town, Panipat, let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 106/- since July 4, 1970. His ejectment therefrom was claimed inter alia on the grounds that the house was rented out to him for residential purposes but he has converted it into a non-residential building without her written consent and that he was using it for the purpose other than the one for which it was let out to him, i.e., it had been let out to him for residence but he had started using it for legal practice. The eviction application was contested by the tenant inter alia on the ground that the application was barred by the principles of res judicata, and, therefore, the same was not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that from the very beginning he had taken the demised premises for his residence as well as for his profession of advocacy, and since then he had been carrying on his legal profession in one room of the house and was residing in the remaining portion thereof. The other allegations made in the ejectment application were also controverted. It may be mentioned here that prior to the filing of the present ejectment application, the landlady had filed an ejectment application dt. Aug. 9, 1976, for ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that she bona fide required the same for her own use and occupation. In the said application, the plea taken on behalf of the tenant was that the building was non-residential one as a part of it was being used for business purposes by him, as he was a practising lawyer at Panipat, for having his office and library; hence the said ejectment application merited dismissal. A certified copy of the Written Statement therein is Ex.P.4. Not only that, the tenant had also moved an application in the said eviction application, a certified copy of which is Ex.P.3, for framing of additional issues. In para. 2 thereof, it was stated :- "That the respondent in his amended written statement dt. 4-4-1977 in para No. 2 of the preliminary objections has raised the plea that the property in dispute, was nonresidential one as the main part of it is being used for business purposes by the respondent having his office and library who is a practising lawyer at Panipat, but no issue has been framed by the Hon'ble Court in this respect which is very much material for decision of controversy between the parties and in the interest of justice." This plea of the tenant was negatived both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. A certified copy of the judgement of the Appellate Authority is Ex.P5. It has been held therein,- "Nevertheless, there is no evidence for the respondent (tenant) to show that he had obtained this building on rent for both purposes, i.e., for his office as a lawyer and for his residence and not for mere residence." Thus, the plea of the tenant that the building was a non-residential one because he was carrying out his business of advocacy in a portion of it, was negatived. However, the landlady failed in the said ejectment application because she could not prove her bona fide requirement of the demised premises for her use and occupation. The eviction application out of which the present revision petition has arisen was filed on Sept. 27, 1979, by her mainly on the ground that there was a change of user of the premises by the tenant. This ground of eviction was made available to her by the tenant himself on the basis of the plea taken by him in the earlier ejectment application wherein it was pleaded by him that the building in question was nonresidential one because he was running his office of Advocate and a library therein.
(3.) The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant was liable to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground of the change of user thereof. The plea that the landlady required the premises bona fide for her son's use and occupation was negatived. The plea of res judicata raised on behalf of the tenant was also negatived. Consequently, the eviction application was allowed and an order of eviction passed against him. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of change of user of the demised premises, and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against him and in favour of the landlady Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant preferred this revision petition which came up before me while sitting singly.;