TIRLOK CHAND Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 1.3.2012 of the Rent Controller, Malout whereby eviction of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground of personal bona fide necessity/requirement of the respondent-landlord. Further challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 23.11.2012 of the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Malout. While setting up personal bona fide necessity/requirement, the respondent-landlord pleaded that he requires the shop in dispute for his use and occupation as he is an Advocate by profession and has no office to attend his clients after and before Court hours and to study cases and he was not occupying any such shop/office in the urban area of Gidderbaha or any other shop or building for the purpose of setting up of his office. Further, he pleaded that he has not got vacated any such shop or building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act in the vicinity of the urban area. It was further stated that he wanted to build/construct/start his office in the disputed shop. Thus, the petitioner be evicted from the demised shop.

(2.) The petitioner contested the eviction petition denying the averments.

(3.) While allowing the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide necessity, the Rent Controller held that the respondent-landlord has proved that he has no other space available to him to open his office and the petitioner has not been able to bring on record if the respondent was having sufficient alternative suitable accommodation to set up his office as an Advocate. The reference may be made to the following paragraphs of the judgment of the Rent Controller.