VISHAL GARG Vs. KANWALJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the tenants Vishal Garg is in revision against the orders of eviction passed by the Courts below in respect of SCF No.12, Sector 20D, Chandigarh on the ground of personal need of the landlords.

(2.) In brief, landlord Pavittar Singh filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') in order to seek eviction of his tenants from the demised premises on the ground of personal necessity and non-payment of rent. It was alleged that Sunder Singh father of Pavittar Singh had purchased the demised premises from one Jagat Ram under whom he was the tenant. Earlier Sunder Singh had filed Civil Suit No.324 of 1969 against late Sham Sunder (tenant) in which the proceedings were stayed on 6.5.1971 on account of an application filed by Sham Sunder that there is an Arbitration clause in the agreement, however, the said order was set aside in appeal on 14.7.1972 and the proceedings continued for eviction in which Sham Sunder tendered the rent w.e.f. 1.1.1985 to 30.6.1987 @ Rs. 275/- per month. Unfortunately Sunder Singh expired on 14.5.1993 and it is alleged that since June 1993 the rent was not paid by Sham Sunder. It is also alleged that from the year 1992 Pavittar Singh along with his family had settled at Manipur where he was carrying on business but due to disturbed law and order condition and terrorism, he was threatened repeatedly by outlaw outfits for ransom and even caused bomb blast at his showroom, therefore, he shifted with his family to Delhi but now in order to earn his livelihood, he wanted to shift his business to Chandigarh for which he required the demised premises. Pavittar Singh also alleged that he is a heart patient and having his regular treatment from Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi and since his heart is only functioning to the extent of 15% and is unable to undergo bye-pass surgery, therefore, it was alleged that he cannot live in Delhi, which is a highly polluted city. With these assertions, eviction was sought alleging that they have a house at Chandigarh, which is sought to be got evicted and he wanted to shift his business to the demised premises. He also alleged that he has a son, who is ultimately to be supported by him as he is dependent upon him for the purpose of accommodation. In the written statement, it was alleged by the tenants that need of the landlord is not bona fide as he wanted to dispose of the demised premises after it is got vacated. The landlord possessing good heath and is having business at both the places in Manipur and Delhi. It was denied that Manipur is disturbed area and they are getting constant threats to their lives. After pleadings were over, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :

(3.) Thereafter, landlord Pavittar Singh started his evidence and in pursuance thereof he tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A in his examination-in-chief on 14.10.03 in which he alleged "that the deponent states that he has a son who ultimately to be supported by him. Son too is dependent upon him for the purpose of his settlement in the life. The son too is to run the business. The SCF in question would be the most appropriate building for the deponent to start his business after shifting the same to Chandigarh. Thus, besides there being honest need to occupy the premises, the same would be useful and beneficial to the deponent as well in order to run a good business".