JASPAL SINGH Vs. BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bahadur Singh and his mother Parkash Wati instituted a petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for causing eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises, the description of which has been given in the head-note of the ejectment petition. It was stated therein that the petitioner-tenant was inducted by Gurdial Singh, father of respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 2 at a monthly rent of Rs. 500.00 and the terms of tenancy were reduced into writing on 30th Oct., 1976. Gurdial Singh died on 1st Feb., 1987 and respondent No. 1-Bahadur Singh along with his mother respondent No. 2-Parkash Wati and other three brothers, namely, Devinder Singh, Saudagar Singh and Kuldip Singh, succeeded to the property. As per the Will, their mother respondent No. 2-Parkash Wati was given rights to raise the rent and utilise the same till her lifetime. It is stated that in the first week of Dec. 1988, a family settlement was arrived at. The property was partitioned and the area in possession of the petitioner Civil tenant fell to the share of respondent No. 1-Bahadur Singh. In the month of March 1995, petitioner was permitted to raise construction of an office and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,025.00 qua the tenancy of office, which was already treated as one and indivisible for all intents and purposes.

(2.) In the eviction petition to cause ejectment of the petitioner tenant, two grounds were pleaded. Firstly, it was stated that the petitioner tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1st Nov., 1997 and he had also not paid the house tax with effect from 1st April, 1996. Secondly, it was pleaded that the premises was required by respondent No. 1-Bahadur Singh for his own use and occupation. It was stated that respondent No. 1- Bahadur Singh was having his wife and three daughters. The eldest daughter, namely Paramjit Kaur was married and the other two, namely Satwant Kaur and Amarjeet Kaur were of marriageable age and their marriage was to be performed. It was further averred that respondent No. 1-Bahadur Singh intend to start his own workshop to earn his livelihood, for performing the marriage of his daughters. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 1-Bahadur Singh was not in possession of any other premises in the urban area of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. The petitioner-tenant caused appearance and denied the ground of personal necessity. The grounds pleaded by respondent No. 1-Bahadur Singh were specifically denied. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana, after completion of pleadings, had drawn the following issues:

(3.) After the evidence was led, the Rent Controller came to a conclusion that since the rent was tendered, the ground of non-payment of rent was not available. However, the eviction petition was dismissed on the ground that the landlord had failed to prove his personal necessity. The evidence led by respondent No. 1-Bahadur Singh was dealt with by the Rent Controller in the following manner: