BALKAR SINGH Vs. SUCHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Balkar Singh has filed the present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment dtd. 1/7/2023 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur and ejectment order dtd. 8/2/2023 passed by learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur alleging that the impugned orders are based on conjectures and surmises and non appreciation of material evidence available on the record.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Sucha Singh - respondent (petitioner in the main case) filed petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of respondent from the shop marked as IJKL shown in red dotted lines in the site plan with the boundaries as detailed in the petition, situated at Dadwan Road Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. The petitioner/landlord submitted that the shop in question was owned by him which was in occupation of the respondent/tenant for the last about 20 years on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000.00. There existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent/tenant is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the ground of non payment of rent since January, 2000 and secondly, he required the demised shop for his own use and occupation as well as for use and occupation of his sons namely Ajay Paul Singh and Montek Singh who were dependent on him. He wanted to engage himself as well as his sons in the business. The said shop is part and parcel of the building owned by him. It is old double storey building over a plot measuring 23 marlas situated at Dadwan Road, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. The site plan of the entire building was placed on record. It consisted of 5 shops and a motor room in the front portion. There were residential rooms on the first floor of these shops. The shops are integrated part of the remaining building. His son Ajay Pal Singh was Law Graduate but he was not settled in his legal profession, therefore, he wanted to settle down his son Ajay Paul Singh and other son Montek Singh who was about to complete his studies in business. They wanted to open a departmental store-cum-mall by raising new construction as shown in the site plan. He had also filed ejectment petitions against the other tenants who were in possession of four shops as shown in the site plan. The entire old structure would be demolished to construct a commercial building i.e. departmental store/mall. He was not occupying any other building or vacated any such building in the urban area of Dhariwal. He requested the respondent to pay the arrears of rent but he put off the matter on one excuse or the other. He also asked the respondent several times to vacate the demised shop and to hand over the vacant possession but he refused to do so and ultimately, the present ejectment petition was filed by the petitioner/landlord- Sucha Singh.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent by filing written reply taking preliminary objection that the ejectment application was not maintainable. The petitioner did not come to the Court with clean hands. He had no locus standi or cause of action to file this case. The respondent was dragged in unnecessary litigation. On merits, it was denied that the shop in question marked as IJKL shown in red colour was owned by the petitioner. In fact he was neither owner of the shop nor has got any right, title or interest therein. The respondent was in occupation of demised shop for the last about 35 years. It was denied that monthly rent of the shop was Rs.1,000.00. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied. In fact, he was inducted as tenant by Smt. Raj Rani on a monthly rent of Rs.200.00. He is running business in the shop for earning his livelihood. It was further denied that he was in arrears of rent since January, 2000. It was further denied that the petitioner was having bona fide requirement for the said shop for his own use and occupation or the same was required for his sons. It was further denied that the shops are part and parcel of the remaining building. It was denied that in the front portion, there exist 5 shops and a motor room owned by the petitioner. The shops are not part and parcel of the said building. The petitioner had no right to demolish the shop in possession of the answering respondent. The site plan was incorrect. The petitioner never made any request to the respondent. It was prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner deserved dismissal with cost.