SURINDER NATH Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute pertains to a shop situated in Tehsil Khanna District Ludhiana. Respondent no. 1-landlord filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller at Khanna seeking eviction of petitioner-tenant on the ground that he needed the premises for personal necessity. He pleaded that tenant took the shop on rent from the father of the petitioner in the year 1964 at monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. After he purchased the property, petitioner became his tenant in the demised premises. Landlord took the plea that he had two sons. He wanted to settle one son in shop 'X' and other in shop 'Y'. On notice being issued original tenant-Surinder Nath and his two sons filed a joint reply. They pleaded that litigation regarding title of the property was pending amongst co-owners along with respondent no. 1. However, they admitted landlord-tenant relationship subject to decision of litigation between co-owners.

(2.) They also took the stand that petitioner had sufficient accommodation which can be converted into commercial complex. To prove his case, petitioner Kuldip Singh stepped into the witness box. He produced the site plan of the demised premises Ex. A1 and also copies of receipt regarding payment of rent bearing signatures of petitioner-tenant. Another witness i.e. official of a company Godrej Agrovet Ltd. appeared in his support. He produced appointment letter dated 31.03.2006 pertaining to his son to show that his employment was temporary in nature. His son Mandeep Singh appeared as AW3 and claimed that his father required the premises for his occupation and business. He produced certain certificates to show his educational qualification and his appointment as clerk with Godrej Agrovet Ltd. The tenant deposed before the court that landlord only wanted increase in rent. On refusal to do so, he filed ejectment petition. He reiterated that landlord had sufficient accommodation which could be converted into commercial complex, thus, his need was not bona fide.

(3.) Another witness Amarjit Singh from the Local Income Tax office appeared and brought on record income tax return of the tenant. Another witness deposed regarding salary of Mandeep Singh son of landlord. Certain other witnesses deposed regarding employment of Mandeep Singh. After appreciating the evidence, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that landlord required the premises for his bona fide use and, thus, allowed the ejectment petition. Petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within three months. Findings of Rent Controller were unsuccessfully challenged by the tenant before the appellate authority. Aggrieved, he has preferred the present revision petition before this court.