JASPREET TAKHAR Vs. GHAI ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is in revision challenging the orders of dismissal of the petition for eviction filed under the Punjab Rent Restrict Act on the ground of personal requirement of the demised property for establishing her own business in Pottery. The petition was filed on an express averment that the petitioner owned no other premises within the same town and she had not also vacated any property to disentitle her for claiming the demised property for personal necessity. The respondent denied that there was any bona fide need and contended that the petitioner was an Architect and she had not established her own prowess or skills in the Pottery business. At the time of trial, it was elicited in the cross examination of the landlord that she had yet another building in her occupation in the very same town and she sought to explain it in her evidence that it was a rented place where she was having an Architect's office and she had no other property in her possession. The Rent Controller observed that the petitioner had been guilty of suppression of material fact and found the bona fides as not established. The Appellate Court had additional reasons to support namely that the place where the demised property was situate was essentially a property reserved for automative parts and the place would not be suitable for carrying on the Pottery business. The Appellate Court also observed that the plaintiff had not established that she had indeed established business or obtained order for their execution.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that she did not own other property except the demised property and the particular building which was in occupation in which she was carrying on her profession as an Architect was actually a rented premise.

(3.) The contention of the landlord was resisted by the tenant by urging that the petitioner had been guilty of suppression of an important fact of some other property in her possession at the time when the petition was filed. Learned counsel would refer to a specific mandate contained under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It mandates under Section 13(3) 2(i) that in case of non-residential building a landlord is not merely to declare that the property is required for his own use but should also affirm under sub clause (b) that he was not occupying in the urban concerned for the propose of his business any other building and in clause (c) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. It was not until the cross-examination that the land-lady admitted that she had yet another building. It is irrelevant that she did not "own" any other building than the demised premise.