1. This is landlady's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
2. The landlady Raj Rani Aggarwal sought the ejectment of her tenant Jai Kishan from the premises, in dispute, which consist of one room and store on the ground floor of the residential building inter alia on the ground that she bona fide required the same for her own use and occupation. It was also alleged that he had changed the user of the premises from the residential to the non-residential. She also averred that she had purchased the house of which the demised premises formed a part, from the earlier owner Shrimati Jiwani on May 10, 1977. The arrears of rent were claimed for the period from May 10, 1977 to May 9, 1978, at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was submitted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the premises were taken on rent from Shrimati Jiwani at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month in the year 1970. Thereafter the rent thereof was increased to Rs. 10/- per month with effect from January 1, 1976. It was further stated that the premises, in question, were non-residential as the same were let out for commercial purposes and, therefore, the same could not be got vacated to her personal necessity by the landlady. The arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month were tendered on the first date of hearing. The learned Rent Controller found that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the premises, in dispute, were non-residential one and that the same could not be got vacated for her personal necessity by the landlady. It was also found that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month and not Rs. 25/- per month, as claimed by her. In view of these findings, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady has come up in revision to this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the premises, in dispute, formed a part of the residential building which was purchased by the landlady on May 10, 1977, and, therefore even if it be assumed that the same were let out for non-residential purposes, the landlady was entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant therefrom on the ground of her personal requirement. According to the learned counsel, the premises, in dispute, did not cease to be residential merely because the same were let out for non-residential purposes. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh, (1980) 1 Rent CR 530 (Punj & Har).
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition.
5. It has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the premises, in dispute, consisted of a shop and a store or on the ground floor (which is the total accommodation available on the ground floor) and were let out at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month as a dark rook for carrying on photography work. It has been further found that the tenant had been using the said premises for commercial purposes from the day he had taken them on rent. This being a finding of fact could not be successfully challenged in this revision petition.
However, the contention of the learned counsel for the landlady, that even if it be assumed that the premises, in dispute, were let out for commercial purposes, even then it being a part of a residential building could be got vacated for personal requirement by the landlady, is not available in the present case because it has not been proved on the record that the building as a whole was only meant for residential purposes. It has come into the evidence and has been so found by the Rent Controller as well that so far as the structural design of the premises, in question, is concerned, a perusal of the mortgage deed, Exhibit A.3, clearly shows that the shop of Panna Lal bearing No. 441 and that of Sham Lal bearing No. 439, are situated on the south and north of the tenanted premises. Thus, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the landlady that the building as a whole was constructed only for residential purposes. It appears that the ground floor was constructed as a shop and was being used as such from the very inception. No only that it has further come into evidence that after the filing of the present ejectment application, the landlady got a portion of another residential building vacated from one Surain Singh, which was now being used as a shop by the son of the landlady. It further shows that the area where the premises are situated is not purely residential, and the premises, itself, are residential-cum-commercial. Under the circumstances Kamal Arora's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the landlady does not help her case. In the said case, it was found as a fact that the building as a whole was a residential one.
6. Of course, it has been observed by the Appellate Authority that even if it be assumed that the premises were situated in a residential locality, it would not meant that the property cannot be used for a non-residential purpose. Thus, it appears that the locality may be residential in the sense that on the first floors the people are having their residences whereas on the ground floors the premises are being used for commercial purposes. Nothing has been brought on the record on behalf of the landlady to show that the ground floors of the houses in the vicinity of the premises are being used for residential purposes.
7. Apart from the above, in the present case, the conduct of the landlady is also not above board. She got certain other premises vacated from the tenant Surain Singh, but did not occupy the same. They were now being used as a shop by her son. Besides the rate or rent was claimed to be Rs. 25/- per month whereas the concurrent findings of the authorities below are that it was Rs. 10/- per month only.
8. In this view of the matter, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
9. Revision dismissed.