INDERJIT BEDI Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The civil revision is at the instance of the landlord who suffered reversal in revision for ejectment for personal requirement of his son under East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The ground of eviction, as pleaded by the landlord, was that he required the premises for setting up his son in a TV repairs shop. The credential that his son had been adept at repairs was sought to be established by producing a diploma certificate in TV repairs that his son had obtained and he had also brought the evidence through PW2, who had trained the petitioner's son in the particular avocation. The landlord had stated in the petition that neither he owned any other building in the town nor did he vacate any property in the same town to claim the demised property for his personal use.

(2.) The tenant contested the petitioner's claim that he did not own any other building but pointed out to the fact that the landlord, who was in possession of yet another building at Door No.15, Calcutta Street, Khanna, contending that the landlord was guilty of suppression and that there was no need for the landlord to seek his ejectment. It was also his contention in defence that the landlord was better off at Chandigarh with his family where he had a roaring business and there was no necessity for establishing his son in business at Khanna. The landlord filed a replication to these contentions and joined issue with reference to the existence of a property in Door No.15, Calcutta Street. He explained that it was a property held on tenancy from a landlord who lived in Calcutta and contended that he was running a cloth shop and he had no vacant property in which he could establish his son in his business.

(3.) The Rent Controller accepted the contention of the landlord and ordered ejectment, finding that the landlord's need was established and the possession of yet another building which was demised property cannot render him ineligible to secure his ejectment nor could it prove the want of bona fides. The appellate authority on an appeal by the tenant reversed the decision and accepted the evidence tendered at the time of trial by the tenant that the landlord had sublet the premises to a tailor and if there had been any bona fides in his need, he would have located his own son at the shop where he was having his cloth business and could not have claimed the property in the possession of the tenant.