Smt. Laxmi devi and Others vs Smt. Rattan Devi

J.V. Gupta, J.—This tenant''s petition against whom an eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

The premises in dispute consists of a room. The ejectment of the tenant was sought primarily on the ground that the landlady bonofide required the same for her own use and occupation. In the written statement, these allegations were controverted. It was further pleaded that the application was not competes in respect of the premises in question as the alleged room was a garage, and thus could not be got vacated for residential purposes. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the requirement of (he landlady was bona-fide and thus ordered ejectment. In appeal, the said order of eviction was maintained by the Appellate Authority. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant came in this Court by way of Civil Revision No. 123 of 1975. The principal argument raised in the revision petition on behalf of the tenant was that the landlady had not specifically pleaded in the ejectment application all the three necessary ingredients provided in Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, nor she had proved the same. No other point was raised. On that ground the revision petition was allowed and the impugned orders passed by the authorities below were set aside and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision. The landlady was allowed to put in the amended application within 15 days of the appearance before the Rent Controller. On remand and after the amendment of the pleadings, certain more issues were framed. Ultimately the Rent Controller found that the only issue after remand which remained to be determined, was whether the landlady required the premises in question for her own use and occupation. After discussing the entire evidence, it was found that the landlady was entitled to get the premises vacated and she did require bonafide the same for her own use and occupation Consequently, the eviction order was passed In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order. An argument was also raised before the Appellate Authority that it was incumbent upon the Rent Controller to give findings under issue No. 2-B as well because the orders of the learned Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority were set aside in revision by the High Court and a direction was given for fresh decision after giving opportunity to the parties to make amendment in the pleadings. The learned Appellate Authority negatived this contention on the ground that the finding of the said issue had already been affirmed by the High Court. It was to the effect that the garage used by the tenant for parking his private car was a residential building. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

The only argument raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that after the remand, it was obligatory on the authorities below to decide all the issues afresh. According to the Learned Counsel, having failed to decide all the issues, no ejectment order could be passed.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. This ejectment application, on the basis of bonafide requirement, is pending since April 1970. The said issue i. e. 2-B was already decided in favour of the landlady against the tenant by the authorities below. No challenge was made to the finding under the said issue in the High Court, in the earlier Civil Revision No. 123 of 1975. As a matter of fact, the remand was only for a limited purpose as the landlady had failed to plead the necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i). After the amendment it was found as a fact that the landlady was not in occupation of any other premises nor she had vacated any premises, and that her requirement was bona fide This being a concurrent finding could not be challenged in this revision petition.

Moreover, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was unable to challenge the findings given earlier under issue No. 2-B. Even if the premises in dispute which consist of a room, were being used as a garage, it could not be held to be a nonresidential building as defined under the Act, which means a building solely used for trade and business. In this view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed, with costs however, the tenant is allowed two months time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for two months is deposited with the Rent Controller within a month.