SHANKAR DASS Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's revision petition against the orders dtd. 12/8/2005 passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition and against the order dtd. 20/11/2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, affirming the same.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner/landlord (hereinafter referred to as'the landlord') filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short'the Act'), for eviction of the respondents/tenants (hereinafter referred to as'the tenants') from the shop, portion of Plot no. ED-290, Old Railway Road, Jalandhar City (hereinafter referred to as'the demised premises'). The eviction was sought on two grounds; on account of non-payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1/8/1994 and house tax w.e.f. 1/4/1991, and that the demised premises was required by the landlord for his grandson, Vivek Prasher, who was studying in final year of B.A.M.S. at the time of institution of the petition on 17/4/1997. It was averred that on completion of degree in May 1997, he would start his medical practice in the demised premises. It was bona fide and earnest desire of the landlord to settle his grandson at Jalandhar. It was also pleaded that the landlord had no other suitable accommodation for running the clinic for his grandson. He was living in the locality since long and had a large number of acquaintances in the vicinity of the demised premises which would help his grandson in establishing himself as a medical practitioner.

(3.) The eviction petition was contested by the tenants, inter alia, on the ground that no rent note was executed by them on 1/4/1991, as alleged. The arrears of rent and house tax were statedly tendered to avoid ejectment, but they had a right to recover the excess amount paid to the landlord. Regarding personal necessity of the landlord, it was stated that the demised premises was not required for his grandson. The landlord was in occupation of six other shops, of which three were owned by him and other three had been rented out. One of the shops owned by the landlord was lying vacant, which could have been occupied by his grandson.