R.K. BANSAL Vs. KULJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 31.08.2010 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby his eviction was ordered from the premises in dispute and the judgment dated 16.03.2013 of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order of eviction. Respondents had filed an eviction petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner and proforma respondents No. 5 and 6 on the ground that they were owner/landlords of SCO No. 225, Sector 36 -D, Chandigarh. The petitioner is a tenant under them on the first floor of the aforesaid SCO at a monthly rent of Rs. 16,000/ - excluding water, electricity, sewerage charges, property tax or any other cess or tax. Most of their relatives are living in and around Chandigarh, therefore, with a view to live near them, the respondents purchased Kothi No. 1825 in Sector 34 -D, Chandigarh and started living there since November, 2002. Respondents No. 1 and 2 liked the city of Chandigarh because of quality of life and its clear environment and decided to settle down permanently in Chandigarh. They sold some of the agricultural land in district Faridkot and purchased the aforesaid SCO which comprises of basement, ground, first and second floors. The respondents have got vacant possession of the basement of the said SCO whereas its other floors are occupied by the tenants. There are many other educational institutions in the vicinity, where thousands of students throng throughout the day, and thus, there is a great scope for opening an educational institution in the SCO in question. Thus, they sought eviction of the petitioner and other tenants from the demised premises on the ground that the respondents require the demised premises for doing their business of running an educational institution.

(2.) IT is the further case of the respondent -landlords that the basement portion, although vacant, cannot be used for the said business unless the other floors fall vacant. The respondent -landlords have further pleaded that without the written consent of the owner/landlords, the petitioner -tenant has sub -let front portion of the first floor to respondents No. 5 and 6 for valuable consideration. The said arrangement is secret and therefore, they do not know the amount of rent which the petitioner is charging from respondents No. 5 and 6. The said portion is having separate ingress and egress and can be locked separately, and thus, respondents No. 5 and 6 are in exclusive occupation of the front portion which has been sub -let to them, and thus, the petitioner be evicted from the demised premises.

(3.) WITH regard to the ground of sub -letting, the petitioner submitted that respondents No. 5 and 6 are neither the tenants nor in possession of any part of the premises at first floor. In fact, they were employed by the petitioner, who delivered lectures on particular topics and were paid on hourly basis, and the entire premises on the first floor including cabins for the purpose of coaching for different classes for different subjects was in possession of the petitioner.