JAMSHID AHAMAD KHAN Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions can be disposed of by common judgment since the landlord in both the matters is common and he seeks permission as against both the tenants on the same grounds. Tenants are the petitioners.

(2.) The facts g ving rise to the petition are as follows Respondents are the owners of the suit property. The suit property is a shop located in a market known as 'Chhabda Market'. The petitioners are the tenants therein, he rent is Rs.250/ per month. They were in arrears of rent. Respondent no.l, therefore, filed a civil suit against the petitioners claiming arrears of rent. The said suits were decreed In spite of the decree, the entire decretal amount was not paid and tenants were in arrears of rents up to the date of filing of the application before the Rent Controller. It is also alleged that the petitioners/tenants are habitual defaulters, in as much as, they do not pay the rent regularly. They have also not paid the amount of the taxes payable by them. Respondent no.2 is carrying on his business under the name and style Amar Furniture'.. He is running the business in a rented premises and is paying Rs.480/ to Dharamveer Chhabda towards the rent. It is contended that respondent no.2 has no other suitable accommodation and he, therefore, requires the suit premises for his bona fide occupation.

(3.) The petitioners/tenants resisted the applications. They denied that respondent no.3 is the owner of the premises but they admitted the ownership of respondent no.2. They also admitted that rent is Rs.250/ per month but denied that they were in arrears of taxes. It is their contention that they were sending the rent to the respondents but respondents refused to accept the rent sent by money order. They admit the decree having been passed but deny the quantum of arrears. They also deny that respondent no.3 required the suit premises for his bona fide occupation. It is contended that respondent no.3 is the only son of his father and there are total ten number of shops in the said market. The father and son live in the same house. It is also contended that they have another shop in Nehru Market and they do not require the premises bona fide for their occupation.