D.V.SEHGAL,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 19th may, 1986 of the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Union Territory of Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Act) accepting an application under section 13 of the Act filed by the landlord-respondents and directing ejectment of the petitioner from house No. 303, Section 9-D, Chandigarh.
(2.) THE petitioner, limited Company, took the premises in dispute on rent vide lease deed dated 1th March, 1960 for residence and business. Sarvshri J. C. Malhotra and B.C. Malhotra respondents besides their brother Dr. N.C. Malhotra, Major S.C. Malhotra, Ramesh C. Malhotra and Roop C. Malhotra are the owners of the premises. The respondents filed the application for ejectment of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 1 was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation as Chief Engineer, Beas Sutlej Link Project, Sunder Nagar (Himachal Pradesh) on 30th April, 1982 and wanted to settle permanently at Chandigarh alongwith his wife Smt. Tara Malhotra after surrendering the vacant possession of the Government accommodation allotted to him at Sunder Nagar. Respondent No. 2 stated that he is working as Chief Engineer in Irrigation Department, Haryana, and is posted at Chandigarh. Besides his wife he has a grown up unmarried son Vikram Malhotra, who is working as Engineer with M/s Punjab Tractors Limited, Mohali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. For want of availability of Government accommodation, thus claimed respondent No. 2, he alongwith his wife and the said unmarried son was occupying a rented accommodation consisting of drawing-cum-dining room, study room, store, 3 small bed rooms with attached toilet, kitchen and garage on the ground floor of House No. 265, Section 35-A, Chandigarh at Rs. 1200/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges. That accommodation was not befitting their status. Both the respondents thus stated in their application that they alongwith their families bonafide require the demised premises in question for their own use and occupation. The claim was contested by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the application for ejectment was bad for non joinder of the other co-owners of the demised premises; the premises had been let out for residential-cum-business purposes under a single tenancy and as such it was a non-residential building and could not be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. The genuineness and bonafide of the claim made in the application was contested on the ground that the rent of the premises was increased from time to time on the demand of the landlords but their last demand for further increase in rent was not agreed to and as such the application was mala fide. It was also stated that one of the co-owners Dr. N.C. Malhotra has specifically expressed his desire to sell his 1/6th share in the demised house and since he had not been joined as an applicant, the application lacked bonafides. It was further contended that the respondents were out to sell the demised house and they had also entered into an agreement to sell the same to M/s Onkar Property Dealer and had received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as earnest money. They wanted vacant possession of the same for its sale. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the respondents. The allegations made in the written statement of the petitioner were controverted and averments made in the petition were reiterated. It was further stated that respondents No. 1 had already retired from service. He had shifted from Sunder Nagar surrendering Government accommodation there and had started residing alongwith his wife in a portion of house No. 472, Section 6, Punchkula, District Ambala, owned by his nephew Major Arvind Malhotra, which accommodation was insufficient for his requirement and he is living there purely at the sufferance of his nephew. He wanted to settle permanently in the house in dispute.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to eviction on the grounds alleged in paragraph No. 3 of the petition ? 2. Whether the petition is bad on account of non-joinder of the necessary parties ? 3. Whether the building in dispute is a non-residential building if so, its effect ? 4. Relief. ;