METRO TYRES LIMITED Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision against the order of the Courts below by which it has been ordered to vacate an area of 800 Sq. Ft. of the ground floor of SCO No. 135, Sector 24D, Chandigarh on the ground of personal necessity of the landlords who happened to be the husband and wife.

(2.) In brief, case set up by the landlords is that Renu Dogra purchased SCO No. 135, Sector 24D, Chandigarh (demised premises) with Aruna Dogra who later on transferred her 50% share to Sushil Kumar (Respondent No. 1) by way of registered gift deed. After the purchase, the landlords constructed first and second floors. The tenant was already in occupation of 800 Sq. Ft. area on the ground floor since the year 1984 with whom a lease deed was also executed in the year 1997. The landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] only on the ground of personal necessity alleging that Sushil Kumar (Respondent No. 1) is a Chartered Accountant since 1984 and is operating from his residence and Renu Dogra (Respondent No. 2) has started the business of share brokerage from 4th floor of SCO Nos. 58-59, Sector 17D, Chandigarh which was not found to be suitable as no customer comes to the 4th floor. The share brokerage business being a commercial activity is not permissible from a residential accommodation and as per the Bye-laws of Chandigarh Administration, a professional can use the area maximum up to 450 Sq. Ft. from residential house. Since Respondent No. 1 has been using 450 Sq. Ft. area of his house No. 205, Sector 15A, Chandigarh, therefore, additional area was required for the expansion of business of Respondent No. 2 which could not have been started from the residential house. Thus, it was decided to start business in the demised premises by Respondent No. 2 with the help of Respondent No. 1 and for that purposes the ground floor portion of the demised premises was found to be most suitable which is in occupation of the Petitioner/tenant as the remaining portion on the backside of the ground floor is in possession of the landlords. It was also alleged that Respondent No. 1 had suffered disc problem, therefore, he cannot climb stairs who would also require the entire ground floor of the demised premises for his profession of Chartered Accountant. In reply, the averments made in the eviction petition were denied. On the pleadings of both the parties, two issues were framed. Issue No. 1 was to be proved by the landlords who had examined Sushil Kumar as PW1 and Rajiv Gulati as PW2 besides tendering documentary evidence, whereas the Petitioner/tenant examined Harshpati S. Rawat as RW1 and led documentary evidence but no evidence in rebuttal was led at the instance of the landlords. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, had found the need of the landlords of the demised premises to be bona fide and hence, eviction petition was allowed.

(3.) In the present revision petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the eviction petition has been filed by the landlords projecting the bona fide necessity of both of them but since Respondent No. 2 (Renu Dogra) did not enter the witness box, therefore, her bona fide necessity has not been established. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Thomas John v. P. Kochamini Amma, 1995 1 RCR 243