SATPAL CHADHA Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two revision petitions, namely CR No. 7915 of 2010 titled as 'Sh. Satpal Chadha v. Satish Kumar and another' and CR No. 8327 of 2010 titled as 'Brij Mohan v. Satish Kumar and another'.

(2.) In both the revision petitions, the landlords are the same who have filed similar eviction petition against two tenants in respect of two shops in question. In brief, the facts of CR No. 7915 of 2010 are that tenant Satpal Chadha is in occupation of one room of property No. 4163, Durga Charan Road, Near Subzi Mandi Chowk, Ambala Cantt. at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- for doing the business of clothes. His eviction was sought on the ground that he was in arrears of rent from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2005 amounting to Rs. 1,800/- and that Satish Kumar (landlord) requires the said shop for the business of readymade garments by his younger son Gaurav who is unemployed youth of 23 years of age. In reply, the personal need of the landlord was denied and rent was tendered, therefore, the said ground of eviction was over. It was also alleged that the house bearing No. 4162-63 with its sub numbers is a very big building having an area of 300 square yards. The room (shop) adjoining to the room in question is about 4 times in size than the room under the tenancy of the tenant and both the sons of respondent No. 1 Satish Kumar including the said Gaurav are well settled. It was also submitted that ejectment on the ground of personal necessity for non-residential purpose from a portion of residential building is not maintainable. Replication was filed and from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 17.09.2007 :-

(3.) Both the parties led their respective evidence. On the ground of personal necessity, the learned Rent Controller held that dominant purpose of the said building is residential and thus it can be safely concluded that it is a residential building and as such the premises in question being part of residential building cannot be got vacated for opening a shop, which is a nonresidential purpose. The learned Rent Controller thus dismissed the eviction petition on 06.02.2010 which was challenged in appeal by the landlord and the same was allowed on 21.09.2010.