AMAR NATH Vs. T C MITTAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby the petition of the landlord (respondent) on the ground of personal necessity was allowed by the learned Rent controller, Chandigarh vide its order dated 20.07.2009 and the findings thereof have been affirmed in appeal by learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide its order dated 07.06.2012.

(2.) Brief facts for proper adjudication of the present revision are that the landlord alleges that he was the owner of the house no.3173, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh by virtue of an agreement to sell executed between him and Surinder Singh son of Tej Singh, general power of attorney of Smt. Shakuntala Rani Chadha, Smt. Kanak Anand and Smt. C.M. Anand(original owners of the house). It was stated that this way, the respondent/landlord had become the owner of the property and, therefore, he is entitled to maintain the present eviction petition. It was further stated that the demised premises was required by the landlord for his own bonafide use and occupation by stating that he and his wife are suffering from various diseases related to old age and are living on rent in house no.2256, first floor accommodation in sector 21, Chandigarh at the payment of Rs.5,000/- as rent. Thus it was stated that the ground floor of the premises in question was required for their own use and occupation.

(3.) Upon notice, petitioner(tenant) denied all the allegations of the rent petition and stated that the landlord/respondent is not the owner of the property and, therefore, no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Further, the tenant denied the necessity of the respondent/landlord in his reply and thus prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.