PREM RANI Vs. RAKESH HANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is at the instance of the landlords assailing the concurrent orders of rejection of the one of the petitioner's alleged requirement for establishing his own business. The landlords were brothers and co-owners of the property. They sought for ejectment on the ground that one of them, namely, the 3 rd petitioner required the property for establishing a shoe business which he was adept at, having been involved in the said business and working with one Gurnam Singh. The tenant pleaded that the landlords owned two other buildings which they had not disclosed and the requirements of the petitioners were not bona fide. It was further elicited from the landlords that two other shops were owned only by one of them, namely, Rajinder Parshad and the person for whose requirement the property was sought, namely, Radha Krishan had no concern with the property owned by his brother.

(2.) At the trial, the landlords examined Gurnam Singh, who stated that Radha Krishan was working in his shop but he was not paying any remuneration or salary, while Radha Krishan himself gave evidence that he was being paid Rs. 700/- per month. Along with this discrepant evidence, the Rent Controller observed that the landlords did not give any detail of the extent of two other shops except an assertion that two shops belonged to Rajinder Parshad and that they were situate in a far away place. The Rent Controller therefore found that the landlords' requirements could not be stated to be statutorily complied with.

(3.) After the petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller, in appeal, the landlords have attempted to produce the documents of sale with reference to two other shops in the name of Rajinder Parshad as additional evidence. The appellate Court had rejected the documents as not capable of being received and has affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the discrepant versions of Gurnam Singh and Radha Krishan themselves betrayed want of bona fides.