JAG RAM Vs. LALIT KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby ejectment petition of the landlords had been allowed regarding two shops in question on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) The case of the landlords was that two shops in question were needed for opening the consultancy office being practicing advocates. The defence of the petitioner-tenant was that partial ejectment could not be ordered since there was an open space behind the shops which was also part and parcel of the tenanted site. The contention did not find favour and the Rent Controller noticed that the petitioner was tenant on the shops in question only and not on the rear portion i.e. open plot since in the sale deed the fact of tenancy was only regarding the shops in question. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal on 29.8.2011 and upheld the contention that the landlords had a bonafide necessity of the shops in question for opening of consultancy office. Resultantly, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant.

(3.) Learned senior counsel vehemently contends that the landlords are barred from filing the ejectment petition as earlier they had filed petition under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for fixation of fair rent and another petition for arrears of rent and had not taken the plea of bonafide necessity. Reliance was placed upon Mehtab Singh Advocate Vs. Shri Tilak Raj Arora and another, 1988 93 PunLR 269. It is also contended that property in question had been purchased on 23.7.2007 and present petition for ejectment had been filed on 30.10.2007 and as such bonafide personal necessity did not arise in the present situation. Admittedly, the relief claimed earlier was under Section 4 of the Act and for payment of arrears of rent but requirement for personal necessity can arise at a subsequent stage. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the premises has required by the landlords. Even otherwise during the pendency of the present petition, the possession of the premises had been taken by the landlords in execution proceedings. Certified copy of order dated 28.1.2012 has been placed on record to show that the counsel for the decree holders made a statement that possession of the disputed shop was given to DH, therefore, he does not want to proceed further with the present execution petition as the same has become fully satisfied and in view of the aforesaid statement, the execution petition stood disposed off being fully satisfied. This fact is not denied by the counsel for the petitioner.