J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) DALJIT Singh landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant Madan Mohan Anand from the demised premises bearing No. 1645/XIII near Goal Masjit, Sharifpura, Amritsar. According to the landlord there are four shops in the building and there is Baithak towards street No. 2. The said Baithak was rented out to one Om Parkash deceased for running a depot and the same is at present with his wife. There are two other rooms on the ground floor with a common 'sufa' and it is asserted that the building is a residential one in nature as well as in construction excepting four shops opening towards the bazar in front of the shops. He further asserted that there are 7 rooms on the first floor and a Miani on the deori on the building and a barsati on the second floor. This is a residential portion of the building which has been given on rent to the tenant. On the ground floor the landlord possesses a room and there is a 'sufa' in common between the room occupied by the tenant and the landlord. The building in dispute, according to the landlord, was rented out for running a school. The ejectment was sought on the ground that he required the premises for his own bonafide use and occupation as well as for the occupation of his family members. He does not own or possess any residential building in the urban area concerned nor he has vacated any such building after the coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The tenant was summoned but he did not appear despite service and thus was proceeding ex-parte. He filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings but the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.1.1985. For the reasons best known to the tenant, the said order was never challenged by the tenant. However, he filed an application to join the proceedings at the stage on which the same were pending. This application of the tenant was allowed vide order dated 20.3.1985 and thus, he was allowed to cross-examine any witness who was to be produced by the landlord thereafter. The tenant was allowed to appear as a witness and to produce any other witness or to tender documents. Hence, there was no written statement on the file nor there were any issues framed as such. The landlord appeared as AW1 on 13.12.1984. He also examined Hari Chand AW2 scribe of the rent note Exhibit A.2 whereas the tenant himself appeared as RW2. The only point which required determination by the Rent Controller was whether the building is a residential one and whether the landlord required the same for his personal bonafide use or occupation. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that "in the present case also it can well be said that when the applicant had returned from England in the year 1979 to reside permanently in the India and is so residing since then till today, it can well be inferred that he has retired from service and he wishes to shift to his own native place and to occupy his residential house. Therefore, his need cannot be said to be over-stated by any stretch of imagination." Consequently, eviction order was passed vide order dated 12.5.1985. In appeal the learned appellant authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller with the observations that "Thus we have a case in which the landlord has been knocking at the doors of the courts ever since his return to India requesting them to have the premises in dispute vacated on the ground that he needed it for his own use and occupation. For one reason or the other his efforts have not met with success but the circumstances belie the assertions put forth on behalf of the tenant that the landlord's conduct disentitled him to a finding that his need is in fact bonafide. The landlord admittedly has only one room and a kitchen with him and it is a settled law that it is the natural wish of every landlord to reside in his own house and also to shift to his native place after retirement from service. The evidence on the record indicates that Daljit Singh had gone to England in 1974 and returned permanently to this country in the year 1979 and since then he has been knocking at the doors of the courts for assistance to get possession of the house which he rented to respondent-appellant. Although the evidence does not indicate as to the nature of the landlord yet even if he were to live alone, he is definitely entitled to live in greater comfort than would be available to him in a room and a kitchen. The uncontroverted statement of the landlord in my opinion would be sufficient to warrant the passing of an ejectment order in his favour especially when in relation even to this aspect of the case there is no denial in the pleading as also that the rent which is supposed to have been enhanced in the year 1977 would have been enhanced at a time when the landlord was not in India. Looked at from any angle, I do not find any sufficient reason for interfering with the order of the Rent Controller and consequently affirm the same."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant-petitioner submitted that from the site plan Exhibit A.1 it is quite evident that the demised premises is a non-residential building and is situated in a business locality. The same were rented out for running a school which also amounts to business and trade. In the year 1977 the rent was enhanced by the landlord and, therefore, the application could not be held to be bonafide. Moreover, the tenant vacated some other house earlier which is being occupied by the landlord. According to the learned counsel the landlord being a bachelor did not require that much accommodation and hence no eviction order could be passed against the tenant.;