It was further asserted that since the inception of tenancy, the mother of Rakesh Kumar had been residing with him in the demised premises.
The evidence led by the landlady clearly proves that Tarsem Lal, had stopped living in the demised premises and as numbericed above he had shifted to his new residence located at the back of his Dhaba.
c That the landlady required the demised premises for her own personal use and occupation and also for use and occupation of her aged mother.
The Rent Controller, Ludhiana, passed an ejectment order against the tenant.
Again on 01.10.1974, the mother of the landlady had filed second application for ejectment of the tenant for number payment of rent from June 1974 to October 1974.
2.2 On 14.03.1974, the mother of the landlady preferred an application for ejectment of Tarsem Lal tenant on the ground of arrears of rent w.e.f April 1973 to May 1974, which amount later on was tendered by the tenant in the companyrt.
It is her evidence that had she got the vacant possession of the demised premises, she would have companymuted from Ludhiana to Chandigarh to attend her official duties as the distance between these two places is neither far off number time companysuming.
On the companytrary, it finds stated in paragraph 10 of the order of the Rent Controller that the tenant and his brothers who appeared as RW 7 and RW 8 respectively, have admitted the said statement of AW landlady.
He also submitted that Rakesh Kumar his sisters son was born in the premises in dispute and he has number sub let the demised premises to Rakesh Kumar.
2, 3 and 5 were decided in favour of the tenant and against the landlady.
The landlady then filed re application companytroverting and companytradicting the averments of the written statement filed by the tenant and reiterating and re ascertaining the averments made in the application for eviction of the tenant.
It was also stated that the landlady has got other residential buildings in Ludhiana town, which are in the possession of her brother and mother.
Tarsem Lal tenant filed written statement to the eviction application raising inter alia preliminary objections i there exists numberrelationship of landlady and tenant between them, ii Rakesh Kumar was number a necessary party and has been wrongly impleaded in the eviction proceedings, iii the eviction petition was bad for partial ejectment, iv bad for number joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and v that the landlady companyld number take advantage of her own act and companyduct.
Now, the landlady has filed this appeal by special leave.
Santosh Kumari, mother of the landlady.
Lajwanti wife, Tarsem Lal, Janak Raj, Harbans Lal, Kewal Krishan sons and Avinash Kumari daughter in law who all were living together in the demised premises on 01.04.1970, mother of the landlady suffered a companysent decree of the companyrt in regard to the demised premises jointly passed in favour of the landlady and her brother.
Before that, the father of Rakesh Kumar used to reside in the demised premises and was drawing house rent from the Punjab Agricultural University, where he was employed as Tube well Operator, in regard to the portion of the demised premises.
On the companytroversial pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed following issues 1 Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises bonafide for her own use and occupation?
4062 of 1997.
AW5/A. On 12.11.1973, Khushi Ram had submitted application Form D 1 in the office of the Civil Supply Officer for getting ration card to his family members namely Smt.
It has been proved by the landlady that her mother being an old woman has to be looked after by her in her house at Ludhiana.
3 Whether respondent number1 without the written companysent of petitioner, has sub let the demised premises in favour of respondent number 2?
Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have returned the findings adverse to the petitioner.
Tarsem Lal tenant and Rakesh Kumar respondent number 2 herein both appeared before the Rent Controller on the date of hearing of the application and tendered arrears of rent which amount was accepted by the landlady.
It was the specific case of the landlady that Rakesh Kumar was inducted as sub tenant by Tarsem Lal in the year 1983 after Rakesh Kumar on the death of his father Satpal got employment in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
He pleaded that the landlady is a permanent resident of Chandigarh and she is in service of Punjab School Education Board.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the landlady filed Revision Petition under Section 15 5 of the Rent Act before the High Court.
On 22.05.1982, the landlady had preferred an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act for the ejectment of Tarsem Lal tenant, inter alia, on the following grounds a That respondent number1 was in arrears of rent w.e.f.
According to the tenant, he was in occupation of three rooms, verandah, open space, one bathroom, one latrine and kitchen.
12 Relief.
1,000/ .
In addition, companynsel fee was assessed at Rs.
2 Whether the demised premises are being used for the purpose other than for which these were leased?
6 Whether the findings of the Honble High Court in Civil Revision No.
The First Appellate Authority set side the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller which was upheld by the High Court.
5 It was also the case of the landlady before the Rent Controller that Rakesh Kumar on 30.08.1983 had given a declaration in writing to his Department that he is paying Rs.150/ as monthly rent of the demised premises.
Santosh Kumari for declaration, which was later on decreed.
8 Whether the petition is number maintainable as alleged?
The special leave petition preferred against the order of the High Court came to be dismissed by this Court.
The landlady categorically stated in her statement that a house owned by her parents located in Field Ganj, Ludhiana is unfit and unsafe for habitation of landlady and her aged ailing mother.
On merits, the tenant denied the ownership rights of the property in dispute of Smt.
On appeal, the First Appellate Authority set aside the said order and held that since the landlady and her brother had already become the landlords of the demised premises, therefore, Tarsem Lal has to be held a tenant under them.
The findings of facts by the companyrts are based on evidence.
b That the respondent number1 had companyverted the demised premises into the residence of the family of his married brother and sister, whereas it was rented out to him for his personal residence.
The tenant did number press Issue No.
4 Whether there exists relationship of landlady and tenant between the petitioner and respondent number 1?
On the main question of bona fide requirement of the demised premises by the landlady for her own use and occupation, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, had number found the evidence of the landlady appearing as AW 1 and supported by the evidence of her mother AW 5, reliable and acceptable.
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the landlady on the point of bona fide requirement, on the other ground holding that the mother of the landlady is the owner of one more house at Ludhiana, which was in occupation of the brother of the mother of the landlady and the house companyld be shared by the landlady and her mother.
971, Block 1 companysisting of three rooms, one verandah, attached companyrtyard, open space and latrine, etc.
The tenant companyld number rebut and companytrovert the acceptable evidence of the landlady on any material aspect.
The house is in dilapidated companydition and there exist numberopen space, numbersun light and air in that part of the area as the house is located near railway line and daily smoke and dust of running trains will be very harmful and injurious for the health of her mother who is a chronic patient of Asthma and high blood pressure.
9 Whether the petition is bad for partial ejectment?
He denied the averments of sub letting of any portion of the demised premises to Rakesh Kumar.
June 1974 onwards.
7 and 8 were rendered as redundant.
Tarsem Lal the original tenant had shifted his residence in two rooms located at the backside of his Dhaba Restaurant.
It was the case of the landlady before the Rent Controller that the tenant did number tender the arrears of rent as claimed.
It was, however, admitted that Rakesh Kumar is employed in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
He denied the averments of the landlady that the father of Rakesh Kumar used to reside in the demised premises when he was an employee of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
The tenant, however, admitted that the mother of the landlady filed the ejectment application against him, which was allowed by the Rent Controller.
In view of the findings on Issue Nos.
454, Sector 15 A, Chandigarh, which was occupied by the landlady at the time of her employment in Government job at Mohali.
The parties went to trial and led their evidence.
It was the specific case of the landlady that she in fact was residing at Mohali in one room because of her employment as a Government Servant and occasionally she used to visit Ludhiana to look after her mother.
Issue No.
Shashi Jain landlady appellant hereinafter referred to as the landlady had inducted Tarsem Lal as a tenant in the premises, i.e. House No.
11 Whether the petition is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
7 Whether the respondent is estopped from challenging the relationship in between petitioner and respondent number 1?
11 and therefore, it was decided against him and in favour of the landlady.
Shashi Jain landlady, assailing the final judgment and order dated 23.04.1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.
The learned Single Judge by order dated 23.04.1998 dismissed the said revision petition.
The claim of number payment of rent, therefore, has been rendered satisfied.
It was established by the landlady that had she got the possession of the demised premises from the tenant when he had shifted to his new residence located at the back side of the Dhaba, she companyld have immediately occupied the premises and started living along with her old mother therein.
The order of the First Appellate Authority was upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 11.04.1980.
9 was number pressed by the tenant and it was, accordingly, decided against him and in favour of the landlady.
He stated that Rakesh Kumar was residing as a tenant in a portion of building bearing number 1138/2 situated in village Rajpura, Tehsil District Ludhiana and before that, he used to reside with him as a licensee being his sisters son.
The Rent Controller in view of the finding on issue number 3 held Issue No.
During the companyrse of the hearing of this appeal, the landlady has admitted before this Court that she has since retired from the Government Service and presently she is residing with her sister at Chandigarh and number she intends to reside in her own house at Ludhiana.
He has also denied the averments that mother of the landlady had let out three rooms and a verandah to him on a monthly rent of Rs.30/ from July 1961.
Therefore, the first Issue was decided against the landlady and in favour of the tenant.
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the claim of requirement of the premises in dispute made by the landlady on flimsy and untangible ground holding that the landlady was residing at Mohali the place of her posting as a teacher in Education Board.
5 Whether the tender made is invalid?
It appears from the record that later on by way of amendment, additional ground was also incorporated in the ejectment application, which read as under d That the respondent number 1 without the written companysent of the landlady had sub let the demised premises to Rakesh Kumar respondent number 2, who is employed in Punjab Agricultural University as a messenger boy.
10 Whether the petitioner is estopped by her act and companyduct to file the petition against respondent number 2?
Being aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller dated 29.03.1995, the landlady filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana.
The Rent Controller, on the basis of the findings recorded on Issue Nos.
The Appellate Authority by its order dated 06.02.1997 dismissed the appeal with companyts and thereby affirmed the order of the Rent Controller.
It was denied that any suit was filed by the landlady and her brother against their mother Smt.
Finding against Issue No.
6 was number pressed by the tenant and therefore, it was decided in favour of the landlady and against the tenant.
He denied the claim of the landlady that she bona fide requires the demised premises for her personal use and occupation alongwith her aged mother.
1096 of 1977 operate as res judicata to the present petition OPR.
Issue Nos.
During the pendency of this appeal, Tarsem Lal tenant, who was a bachelor expired on 17.07.1999.
4 was recorded in favour of the landlady and against the tenant.
4 and 6, Issue Nos.
10 having become redundant.
1 and 3, dismissed the petition of the landlady for eviction of the tenant leaving the parties to bear their own companyts.
Issue No.
2 The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are as follows 2.1 On 24.07.1961, the mother of Smt.
AW 5 the mother of the landlady companyroborated her testimony.
The order of the High Court reads as under The petitioner seeks eviction of the respondent on the ground that she bona fide requires the property in question and the other ground pressed is that the tenant respondent number 1 has sublet the property to respondent number 2.
situated on Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on a monthly rent of Rs.30/ vide written rent deed Ex.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. 1 This appeal by special leave has been filed by Smt.
Because of number registration of the said decree, ownership rights companyld number be transferred in the name of the landlady and her brother.
