JOHAN TINSON AND CO LTD SIMLA Vs. AMAR CHAND SOOD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this civil revision petition, M/s John Tinson and Co. (Pvt) Ltd., is aggrieved by the order of the Courts below ordering their eviction from the disputed property under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, at the instance of Shri Amar Chard Sud and his son Shri Kapil Dev Sud, both of them Advocates, who purchased the said property by a registered sale deed on 15. 7. 1966 for Rs. 20,000/- from the previous owner, M/s. Holz Hotels Pt. Ltd. from whom the present petitioner had taken a lease of the property on a rent of Rs. 1,012/- per annum.

(2.) The application was filed by the present landlords on 24. 4. 67 on the following grounds :- (a) that the present landlords required the premises for their own occupation since their present accommodation was too meagre and insufficient for their residence and business since Shri Kapil Dev Sud, son, had also started his practice as an Advocate in Simla in the middle of 1964 having no independent office or residence of his own, he also got married in October, 1965 and their existing accommodation was neither suitable nor sufficiently independent for the use of Mr. and Mrs. Kapil Dev Sud and that the disputed premises were purchased at a huge cost only in order that both of them may have the residence and the office of Shri Kapil Dev Sud in the same. (b) Though the disputed premises were residential a part of it had been converted for business use, one room was used as the office and two servant quarters as a godown. The rest of the building was being used by the Managing Director of M/s John Tinson and Co. for residence. By such conversion of a part of the building from residential to non-residential use the tenants had made themselves liable to be evicted under the Act. (c) The building was also becoming damaged on account of the dampness caused by huge and bulky material being stored in the servant quarters and keeping the same locked.

(3.) The Additional Rent Controller found that the disputed premises were residential but the present landlords had failed to prove that the tenants had used the premises for purposes other than for which they had been let, that the tenant had not committed any act which was likely to impair materially the value or the utility of the disputed premises but ordered eviction on the ground that the present landlords required the disputed premises for their own occupation.