AKASH ARORA Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitioners-tenant, is to the concurrent findings of the Courts below, Kapurthala, whereby ejectment had been passed on the ground of bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller had ordered eviction on 27.03.2017, which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority on 08.05.2018. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the landlord had stated that he had not occupied any non-residential unit and had not vacated any such type of premises or had sold any such building within the Municipal Council, Kapurthala. It is, accordingly, contended that as per the affidavit filed by him and in the cross-examination he had admitted that he had vacated another premises in April, 2007 and therefore, once he had not come to the Court with clean hands, ejectment application was liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed in Inderjit Sharma Vs. Moti Lal,2009 4 PunLR 85 to contend that once the bona fides were not there, ejectment petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is further contended that there was no bona fide necessity since he had retired in the year 2000 and the petition was filed on 15.02.2012 and thus, he did not require the premises in question and in the alternative, space on the first-floor of the shop was also available.

(2.) Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that there was clear disclosure about the earlier occupation of the shop in the rent petition itself in the earlier portion. Therefore, there was no concealment and merely because at the subsequent portion, it was submitted that he had not vacated any portion, it did not mean that there was any concealment, as such. It is, accordingly, contended that neither the said issue was pressed before the authorities below on this account. It was further submitted that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and therefore, the tenant could not dictate to the landlord as to where he has to conduct his business while placing reliance upon Uday Shankar Upadhyay and others Vs. Naveen Maheshwari , 2010 1 SCC 503.

(3.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the petition for ejectment was filed from the establishment in question as detailed in the head-note of the rent petition on the ground that it was originally owned by Tirath Ram, father of the landlord who had expired in the year 2007. He had executed a registered Will dated 14.07.2006 in favour of the petitioner and thus, the respondent was the exclusive owner. The establishment had been rented out vide rent deed dated 19.09.1995 @ Rs.1520/- per month to Ram Prakash, father of the present petitioners and that the rent was to be increased @ 10% after every 3 years. The tenant had paid the due rent upto 30.11.2011, which was to the tune of Rs.2415.77 per month, after deducting the meter rent and the enhancement terms. It was further alleged that the present petitioner was working in the shop in dispute during the lifetime of his father and was continuing possession and therefore, no other legal heir had any concern with the shop. The performa respondents had also been impleaded as party, as such and are now arrayed as petitioner No.2 and 3 and they were running separate shop in Sadar Bazar, Kapurthala in the name and style of Fancy Cloth House. The landlord was an employee of the Punjab National Bank and had taken voluntary retirement in December, 2007 and had been working along with his father in a tenanted shop and was doing the business of tambacco near Jallow Khana, Kapurthala. His landlord, Piara Lal had filed the ejectment petition against Tirath Ram and the shop was got vacated on ground of bona fide requirement, addition and alterations and therefore, they had vacated the shop on 20.04.2007. Since then, the present petitioner-tenant had been asked to vacate the shop as it was required by the landlord to start his own business where he intended to open a gift and flower shop for the purpose of earning his livelihood. However, the averment that he had not vacated any other type of premises and was not occupying any such non-residential building, had also been made. Arrears of rent along with house tax and fire cess since December, 2011 had also been claimed.