SOUTH EASTERN ROADWAYS Vs. SURENDER MOHAN AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant is in revision against the affirmative finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority directing its ejectment from the tenanted premises on a finding that the respondent-landlord require the premises aforementioned for personal bonafide necessity.

(2.) It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the want of bonafides in the conduct of respondent-landlord is evident from the fact that certain other property owned by the latter in that very urban area had been sold off in the recent past. If the respondent-landlord required the premises in that urban area for personal bonafide necessity, the argument proceeds, there is no reason why he would have sold off that property in recent past.

(3.) The learned Appellate Authority recorded a finding of fact that the other three shops which were sold off by the respondent-landlord in 1991 and 1995 (this petition came to be filed on 23.4.2001) did not exclusively belong to him. That fact enabled the learned Appellate Authority to discard the relevant plea by further placing reliance upon Beant Lal v. Radhey Sham, 2008 151 PunLR 408. The relevant part of the finding is reproduced hereunder: