RAM SAROOP Vs. DESH BANDHU BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act), challenging the order dated 20.1.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, as well as the judgement dated 19.9.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby eviction petition filed by the landlord was allowed, directing the tenant - revisionist herein to be evicted on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord.

(2.) In nutshell, facts of the case are that the landlord - respondent has filed eviction petition seeking eviction of the tenant - revisionist saying that consequent upon a family settlement, the tenanted premises in question has fallen into the share of the landlord-respondent herein. It has further been averred that the family settlement was reduced in writing on 21.8.1995 and the same stands duly acted upon. Further contention of the landlord is that the landlord is a practicing lawyer in Nawanshahar for the last 22 years years and before family partition, he was maintaining office-cum-library abutting railway road, which he has to vacate as the share which has fallen to him is on the Geeta Bhawan Road. The landlord further asserted that he requires the premises in question for his personal bonafide need for his professional obligations as he does not have office/library on Geeta Bhawan Road; landlord and his family members does not have any garage to park their vehicle and the landlord need the premises in question bonafidely for his personal use and occupation. It has further been contended by the landlord that no building has been got vacated by him after the commencement of the Rent Act.

(3.) Claim of the landlord was refuted by the tenant - revisionist by way of filing written statement. It has been contended by the tenant that the room, which is claimed to be in the ownership of the landlord is 14 X 10 and is situated on the main road and is convenient for the landlords office. Relationship of landlord - tenant between the parties is admitted, however, it is asserted that there was no family partition amongst the co-owners and besides the original petitioner, his sisters are also co-owners, who are not parties in the alleged family settlement. It has further been averred by the tenant that during the pendency of the case, Raj Kumar has handed over possession of a shop to the landlord and hence, the landlord has no need of the demised premises.