PIARA LAL Vs. NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this civil revision against the order of the Appellant Authority whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment was maintained.

(2.) Naresh Kumar and Kishan Lal, landlords-respondents, brought an application for ejectment of their tenant Piare Lal, petitioner, from a building consisting of a shop and chaubara bearing No. 83 situated a bazar No. 4, Ferozepur Cantt. inter alia on the allegations that they require the premises for their own use and occupation. The application was resisted on behalf of the tenant, Piare Lal. It was contended that the premises in question is a non-residential building and therefore, the ground for own use and occupation is not available to the landlords for seeking his eviction. In any case, it was contended that Naresh Kumar landlord does not bonafide require the premises for his own occupation as he was residing in the ancestral house with his father, and the accommodation available there was more than sufficient for meeting his requirements. The Rent Controller accepted the application of the landlord and ordered the ejectment of tenant as it came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute is a residential building as contemplated under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and the landlord bonafide requires the same for his own use and occupation. In appeal, both these findings have been affirmed by the Appellant Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the landlords have failed to prove their bonafide requirements. No reason has been given by Naresh Kumar, who has appeared as AW-5, that why he wants to shift from the house of his father where he is residing......since long.