MEHAR CHAND Vs. HARISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that, respondents-landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the present petitioner from the shop as described therein. It is claimed in the petition that respondents are the owners and landlords of shop No.48 which had fallen to their share in family settlement dated 16.09.1994. The petitioner is stated to be tenant in the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-per month. Landlords sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of premises being unsafe and unfit for human habitation as well as requirement of the landlords for personal use inasmuch as the shop is stated to be required for the use of Ritesh Goyal son of the applicant-landlord, Harish Chander. It is stated in the petition that landlords were carrying on their business of Halwai (Sweet shop) in shops No.44, 45 and 46 which have fallen to their share in the family settlement dated 16.09.1994, under the name and style of 'Bhagat Ji Ki Dukan '. It is stated that the same is a partnership business of Nitish Kumar son of Subhash Chander and Harish Chander as well as his sons - Vipul Goyal and Ritesh Goyal, who assist their father in running of the business. Business of sale of milk was also stated to be carried out by the landlords. It is further stated that landlords also had a shop on rent situated outside Delhi Gate, Ferozepur city where of Halwai (Sweet) shop too is being run. It is further stated that their family members have increased with their children having grown up, thus they wished to settle their sons by helping establish their independent business. It is stated that Ritesh Goyal, 29 years old married son of respondent-Harish Chander, who was blessed with one child, decided to start his independent life by setting up his own independent business. For this purpose, demised premises was required by the landlords. Copy of the petition under Section 13 of the Act is attached as Annexure PI.

(3.) Petition was resisted by the petitioner-tenant while maintaining that premises in question were fit for habitation. The landlords were denied to be owners of the demised premises on the basis of family settlement. It is however admitted that petitioner was a tenant in the premises since 1968 and was regularly paying rent to respondent, Harish Chander. It was denied that the shop in question was required for personal bonafide necessity of the landlords. It is alleged that the landlords have simply become greedy and they simply wished to increase the rent. Shop No.47, it is stated, belonging to the landlords had been let out on rent. Rent of said shop had been increased from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 4,000/- per month and petitioner was pressurized to increase rent to Rs. 7,500/-per month. Present petition, it is stated, has been filed with a view to enhance the rent. Landlords were claimed to be in possession of nine shops other than demised premises which was not revealed in the petition. Copy of the Written Statement is attached as Annexure P2.