HARBANS LAL Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition seeking ejectment of the Petitioner-tenant on the following grounds:

(2.) The Rent Controller, Jalandhar held that the arrears of rent were paid in the Court, hence, the tender was valid, and therefore, the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent was decided against the landlord. Regarding the change of use, no evidence was led by the landlord and the same was also decided against him. However, considering the evidence of the landlord, who stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and his son Mukesh Kumar PW-2, the Rent Controller held that the ground of personal necessity has been proved. This finding has also been affirmed by the appellate Court below.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner has very fairly stated that since a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded against the Petitioner-tenant and the ground of personal necessity has been upheld, he will not press the present revision petition. However, he has craved the indulgence of this Court to make an alternative arrangement. Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the Petitioner-tenant is running a shop and is having a huge inventory, therefore, a sufficient time be granted to him to clear the same and find-out an alternative business premises.