PRITAM SINGH BAKSHI Vs. SUKHDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-petitioner has approached this Court through the present revision petition against the order dated 3.9.2002 'passed by the lower appellate authority, Chandigarh whereby the appeal against the order dated 11.5.1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dismissing the ejectment petition filed by him under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, "the Act") seeking eviction of respondent-Tenant Pritam Singh (since deceased) from Shop No. 36, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, has been rejected. Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as available on record, may be noticed. On 2.2.1996, the petitioner filed petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from Shop No. 36, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh on the ground of non payment of rent, personal necessity and impairment in the value and utility of the demised premises. The petitioner was owner of the demised premises and the respondent-Pritam Singh was tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- excluding water and electricity charges. The tenancy was created by way of writing dated 31.7.1972 initially for a period of 11 months and the respondent was to hand over the possession to the petitioner on his failure to pay the rent. Sudhir Kumar and Sandeep Kumar, sons of the petitioner were doing business of ready-made garments in Shop No. 25, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh under the name and style of Bakhshi & Sons. The petitioner wanted to increase his- business and in order to earn his livelihood, he required the demised premises which was on the back of the shop being run by his sons and on the vacation of the demised premises, the total area of both the shops would have been the most convenient and spacious for fulfilling the requirement. It was also alleged that the respondent-tenant had constructed a mezzanine portion by fixing ballis etc. and thereby materially impairing the value and utility of the demised premises. The petition was contested by the respondent-tenant, inter alia, on the plea that ground of personal requirement for a non residential building was not available to the petitioner. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was a partner in the firm-Bakshi & Sons and therefore, the ground that the demised premises was required by him for earning his livelihood was not available to him. It was also alleged that the petitioner had let out different buildings in Chandigarh and was getting rent. It was submitted that earlier also he was doing the business in SCO Nos. 3003-04, Sector 22D, Chandigarh and after vacating the said SCO, he had let out the same to some other tenant in 1985-86. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition was made. The petitioner also filed replication reiterating his stand taken in the petition and controverting the assertions made in the reply filed by the respondent-tenant. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent controller framed the following issues:-

(2.) After considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition vide order dated 11.5.1998. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. Vide order dated 3.9.2002, the findings recorded by the Rent Controller were affirmed by the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Issue No. 1 had been wrongly decided by the Rent Controller as well as by the appellate authority and the conclusion drawn by them that the demised shop was not required by the landlord for personal use, was against the record. It was argued that the statement of PW 1 Pritam Singh Bakshi, landlord was in conformity with the pleadings and the findings recorded by the authorities below were wrong. The building was bona fide required by the petitioner.